In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.L. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., St. Vincent Stress Center (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 10 2018, 10:42 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Darren Bedwell Andrew B. Howk
Indianapolis, Indiana Matthew M. Schappa
Hall, Render, Killian, Heath &
Lyman
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Civil October 10, 2018
Commitment of A.L., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant, 18A-MH-1147
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Kelly Scanlan,
St. Vincent Hospital and Health Commissioner
Care Center, Inc., St. Vincent Trial Court Cause No.
Stress Center, 49D08-1804-MH-14159
Appellee.
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 1 of 3
Statement of the Case
[1] A.L. (“A.L.”) appeals the trial court’s order temporarily involuntarily
committing her. She specifically argues that the order is defective because it
lacked the trial judge’s signature and contained only the signature of a
commissioner. Concluding that A.L. has waived appellate review of this issue
because she failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order, we affirm the
trial court’s order.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether A.L. has waived appellate review of her argument
because she failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order.
Facts and Decision
[3] In April 2018, Commissioner Kelly M. Scanlon (“Commissioner Scanlon”)
signed an order temporarily committing A.L. to St. Vincent Hospital and
Health Care Center. A.L. appeals and argues that this order is defective
because it contained only the signature of Commissioner Scanlon and lacked
the required trial judge’s signature. See INDIANA CODE § 33-23-5-8. The State
responds that A.L. has waived appellate review of this issue because she did not
timely object to the commissioner’s order. We agree with the State.
[4] “‘[I]t has been the long-standing policy of [the Indiana Supreme Court] to view
the authority of the officer appointed to try the case not as affecting the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 3
jurisdiction of the court’ – and so ‘the failure of a party to object at trial to the
authority of a court officer to enter a final appealable order waives the issue for
appeal.’” In re Adoption of I.B., 32 N.E.3d 1164, 1173 n.6 (Ind. 2015) (quoting
Floyd v. State, 650 N.E.2d 28, 32 (Ind. 1994)). “[A]ny objection to the authority
of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity
occurs, or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect.”
City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d 227, 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing
Floyd, 650 N.E.2d at 33), trans. denied. In Hicks, this Court held that a party had
waived a claim of error because it failed to timely object to an order signed by a
magistrate but not a judge. Hicks, 932 N.E.2d at 231. Here, as in Hicks, A.L.
failed to timely object to the commissioner’s order. A.L. has therefore waived
appellate review of this issue.
[5] Affirmed.
[6] Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1147 | October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 3