ILNews

Court affirms woman is ‘gravely disabled’ requiring involuntary commitment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to reweigh the evidence used to find a woman needed to be involuntarily committed because she was gravely disabled after claiming she was bitten by poisonous spiders in her home for the fourth time.

C.P. went to the emergency room Aug. 18, 2013, saying she had been bitten by spiders at home and the “venom” left her feeling “heavily sedated or drugged.” Doctors could not find any spider bites and referred her to psychiatry for an evaluation. She was admitted on an emergency detention. Five days later, a psychiatrist recommended C.P. be committed for 90 days to stabilize her on anti-psychotic medication. He believed she could be released sooner and treated on an outpatient basis.

C.P. doesn’t believe she has delusions or a mental illness. She is unable to live at home because of her belief about the spiders and she lost her job. The psychiatrist testified her mental illness impairs her ability to function independently and ability to take medication. The psychiatrist believed C.P. was gravely disabled at the time, requiring the commitment.

C.P. on appeal in In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of C.P., C.P. v. Community Hospital North/Gallahue Mental Health, 49A02-1309-MH-770, challenges the finding that she is “gravely disabled” as defined in I.C. 12-7-2-96, arguing there are no underlying facts that show she cannot function independently. But the judges pointed to the psychiatrist’s testimony and refused to re-weigh the evidence.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT