ILNews

Court declines to review commitment cases differently

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined Thursday to change how it reviews cases dealing with involuntary commitment.

In The matter of the commitment of S.T. v. Community Hospital North, In-Patient Psychiatric Unit, No. 49A04-0910-CV-617, 23-year-old S.T., an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran who uses a wheelchair, appealed her temporary involuntary commitment. Although the ordered up-to-90-day commitment has already passed, the appellate court addressed her appeal anyway.

S.T. tried to kill herself by overdosing on Tylenol. S.T suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, a non-specific mood disorder, and attention deficit disorder. She also engaged in behavior associated with pica, an eating disorder in which people eat non-food items.

When staff tried to remove earrings from S.T.’s digestive tract, she ripped out her IVs and the procedure had to be stopped. She also was verbally abusive and threatening to staff members. After this, the trial court ordered the involuntary commitment.

The appellate court spent the majority of the opinion explaining why it would not reconsider the standard in which it reviews involuntary commitments, as S.T. urged.

S.T. argued for a de novo review, but the cases she cited don’t allow for the appellate court to usurp the trial court’s authority to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes, or for the Court of Appeals to review sufficiency of evidence with no deference to the trial court, wrote Judge Melissa May.

“The determination of dangerousness under the involuntary commitment statute has always been a question of fact for the trial court to decide,” she wrote. “S.T. has not directed us to uncontroverted facts in the record that would change that determination into a question of law that we could review de novo.”

The appellate court also rejected the argument that a new standard should be adopted because the well-established one wasn’t being applied consistently. A review of 67 decisions over the last 25 years showed the opposite, noted the judge.

After explaining the standard in more detail, the appellate court affirmed S.T.’s commitment. Based on testimony from S.T. and the hospital, the court found three facts indicating she was a danger to herself: her behavior toward hospital staff due to her mental illness, her continued attitude of “hopelessness” about obtaining medication through Veterans Affairs, and the possibility of escalated risk of danger to herself as a result of pica.

Combining that with the fact she originally was admitted because of an overdose, she exhibited destructive and angry behavior while there and it was exacerbated by a nonspecific disorder and her PTSD, there was sufficient evidence to support her involuntary commitment for up to 90 days.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT