ILNews

COA: filing of commitment report is a procedural requirement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether the timely filing of a doctor’s report in an involuntary commitment is a jurisdictional prerequisite or a procedural requirement.

In Involuntary Commitment of S.S., No. 49A02-1011-MH-1251, S.S. appealed the denial of her motion to correct error which she filed after the probate court found she was gravely disabled and ordered her to be temporarily committed. S.S. was admitted to Wishard Health Services in Indianapolis on Sept. 16, 2010. Wishard filed the application with the probate court to have her involuntarily committed at 11:30 a.m. that day. Dr. Michael DeMotte examined S.S. September 21 and concluded she needed to continue to be detained. Wishard submitted his report at 11:46 a.m. that day.

Although S.S.’s commitment has since expired, the Court of Appeals still addressed her appeal because this issue is likely to recur. S.S. argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to preside over her commitment proceedings because DeMotte’s report was filed after the period of her detention had ended, so her due process rights were violated. The report was filed 16 minutes late based on the time periods dictated by statute.

S.S. argued this tardy filing of the report stripped the probate court of its jurisdiction to preside over her preliminary hearing and that the timely filing of the report is a jurisdiction prerequisite. Wishard argued that the timely filing of the report is a procedural requirement, without statutorily imposed consequences for untimely filing.

The judges agreed with Wishard. Should the trial court lose jurisdiction over the case, the detained person would be deprived of a forum to seek an order of release, wrote Judge James Kirsch. Regarding S.S.’s due process concerns, Wishard’s failure to comply with the time frame was de minimis with no resulting harm to S.S., the judge continued. Had the report been filed just before the end of S.S.’s detention period, she likely would have had an extended period of detention during the statutorily created 24-hour time frame in which the trial court must consider the report and act.

“The probate court acted in a timely fashion upon receipt of the report, set the matter for hearing, and entered its order of temporary commitment within the time frame established by statute. Thus, there was no prejudice to S.S. As previously stated, we acknowledge the extreme importance and constitutional dimension of the liberty interests of detained persons, but also acknowledge that those interests must be balanced by consideration of the safety interests of the detained person and society,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT