Commitment of T G

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 24A-MH-01930
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Jan 09 2025, 9:43 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: T.G., Appellant-Respondent

v.

Community Health Network, Appellee-Petitioner

January 9, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-MH-1930 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable David J. Certo, Judge The Honorable Matthew M. Schappa, Judge Pro Tempore Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-2407-MH-30194

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 1 of 13 Opinion by Judge Weissmann Judges Pyle and Felix concur.

Weissmann, Judge.

[1] T.G. appeals her temporary involuntary civil commitment, arguing that the trial

court erred by qualifying T.G.’s doctor as an expert witness and in finding T.G.

mentally ill and gravely disabled. We find no error and affirm.

Facts [2] On July 2, 2024, T.G. was transported by ambulance to a Community Health

Network (Community) hospital after purportedly suffering a foot injury at

work. T.G. claimed a large piece of glass had fallen on her foot, but hospital

staff observed no injury. While awaiting a CT scan, T.G. jumped off her gurney

and hid inside an empty hospital room. T.G. also claimed she was being

“trafficked” by her workplace managers and family members. Tr. Vol. II, p. 20.

[3] T.G.’s comments and behavior led to her psychiatric evaluation and, in turn,

emergency detention at the hospital. While detained, T.G. was examined 26

times by Paige Bimberg, M.D., a hospital psychiatry resident. T.G. displayed

paranoid delusions during these examinations, including beliefs that gangs

inside and outside the hospital were attempting to traffic her and that there was

a two-way mirror in her hospital bathroom through which the traffickers were

watching her. T.G. also expressed beliefs that doctors were falsifying her

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 2 of 13 medical records to hide medical conditions such as brain tumors.1 According to

Dr. Bimberg, T.G.’s delusions made conversing with her “very difficult,” as her

answers to simple questions quickly turned into long tangential discussions

about her paranoid beliefs. Id. at 38.

[4] T.G. had been living on the street for several months prior to her emergency

detention, and due to alleged “safety concerns,” T.G. would not disclose to Dr.

Bimberg where she might go upon her discharge from the hospital. Id. at 22.

T.G. claimed she had been “evicted” from her apartment, and she indicated

that her trafficking concerns had caused her to be kicked out of homeless

shelters in the past. Id. at 34. Though she was employed at a Goodwill store at

the time of her hospital admission, T.G. expressed that she would not return to

that job because her managers were involved in her trafficking.

[5] Dr. Bimberg diagnosed T.G. with “unspecified psychosis” and concluded this

“chronic mental illness” rendered T.G. unable to provide herself with essential

human needs—primarily shelter. Id. at 21. T.G., however, did not believe she

was mentally ill and was unwilling to take medications. Therefore, Community

petitioned for her temporary involuntary civil commitment.

[6] At a civil commitment hearing held on July 18, 2024, Community presented

Dr. Bimberg as an expert witness. Among other things, Dr. Bimberg testified

that her psychiatry residency began on July 1, 2024, and that she had worked

1 T.G. underwent a CT scan at the hospital, and it revealed no brain tumor.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 3 of 13 sixteen days since then. T.G. objected to Dr. Bimberg’s qualification as an

expert in psychiatry, emphasizing that her residency began just one day before

T.G.’s admission to the hospital. Over this objection, the trial court qualified

Dr. Bimberg as an expert and permitted her to testify about T.G.’s diagnosis,

symptoms, inability to function, and lack of insight concerning her mental

health.

[7] T.G. also testified at the commitment hearing. When asked about her safety

concerns outside the hospital, T.G. stated: “I’ve had people that have

befriended me using a romance scam uh, gained my trust and then destroyed

property, um, destroyed evidence and injured me personally and I don’t know

why anybody wouldn’t be concerned about a safety like, a safety issue of that

sort.” Id. at 49. T.G. later described her “immediate family members” as

“predators” and indicated that they had physically and emotionally hurt her in

the past. Id. at 52.

[8] On the issue of trafficking, T.G. presented two May 2022 police reports in

which she accused her ex-boyfriend of harassing and stalking her. T.G. also

testified that, on several occasions, her ex-boyfriend had told her if she loved

him, she would “whore [her]self out” to a room full of men. Id. at 53. When

asked if other people had said similar things to her, T.G. added that, when she

was a child, her sibling asked her to “either be naked and lie with him or to give

him oral pleasure.” Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 4 of 13 [9] T.G. disputed that trafficking concerns were the reason she planned not to

return to her job at Goodwill. Instead, T.G. stated: “I believe what I told them

repeatedly was that it wasn’t a good fit for me because of some of the

harassment and bullying that I was dealing with um from other staff members

and customers that were just not behaving themselves.” Id. at 42. T.G. then

explained her apartment “eviction” as follows:

They did not renew the lease and it was after ten months of me reporting to rural development as well as all the way to the civil rights commission that I had been, being harassed from the apartment manager. I requested a replacement manager because I needed to have somebody to give my rent payment to every month um they refused um, ironically none of that is in the system and I just found that out yesterday by you I believe. It was very upsetting, because I had no representation in court, I was never allowed a counter claim, it evicted me illegal (sic) as a retaliation for reporting harassment on government property. Yet I paid my rent every month in full and on time and detail cleaned the apartment top to bottom and steam cleaned the carpets before I left. It was move in ready.

Id. at 45.

[10] T.G. also testified that she had saved enough money to stay at a hotel for six to

eight months. But when asked if she would be able to secure housing upon her

discharge from the hospital, T.G. responded:

I do believe so sir, I’m just not sure at what, where or of what kind. Um, since I was paying my rent in full and on time and being harassed on government property, it makes it very hard for me to believe that I’m gonna, in the same state where I was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 5 of 13 illegally had (sic) a retaliatory eviction and forced to be homeless, that I would be able to sign a lease in another government facility and have smooth sailing if you know what I mean. . . . I will attempt to find all kinds of housing, but I will never go back to a shelter system again.

Id. at 49.

[11] Dr. Bimberg ultimately recommended that T.G. be temporarily committed to

the hospital so that she could be stabilized on an anti-psychotic medication and

set up with outpatient care. The trial court agreed. Finding T.G. was mentally

ill and gravely disabled, among other things, the court ordered her civil

commitment for a period not to exceed 90 days.

Discussion and Decision [12] On appeal, T.G. challenges the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence

supporting her temporary involuntary civil commitment. Though her

arguments were mooted by the passage of the 90-day commitment period, T.G.

raises the novel issue of whether a doctor may be qualified to testify as an

expert in psychiatry only sixteen days into their psychiatry residency. Because

the resolution of this question adds to the instructive body of law, we opt to

consider the merits of T.G.’s appeal under the public interest exception to the

mootness doctrine. In the end, we find sufficient admissible evidence to support

the trial court’s judgment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 6 of 13 I. Mootness Exception [13] Community asks this Court to dismiss T.G.’s appeal as moot because the trial

court’s 90-day commitment order expired while the appeal was pending. “The

long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been that a case is deemed moot when

no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” T.W. v. St.

Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019)

(quoting Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991)). Though we

generally dismiss moot cases, “Indiana recognizes a public interest exception to

the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a

question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” Id. (quoting Matter

of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)).

[14] T.G. claims her appeal involves issues of great public importance and urges us

to consider their merits under the public interest exception. “Temporary civil

commitments can often fit within this public interest exception to mootness

because they are transitory in nature and require the delicate balancing of a

person’s fundamental liberty interest with the safety of individuals and the

public.” E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464, 465

(Ind. 2022). “Because of the fundamental interests at stake in these cases,

review of the issues presented is important, including the nuances of the

sufficiency of the evidence to support a commitment.” Id. at 467.

[15] Our Supreme Court has explained that “appellate courts are not required to

issue an opinion in every moot temporary commitment appeal, but they may

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 7 of 13 readily do so to address novel issues or close calls, or to build the instructive

body of law to help trial courts make these urgent and difficult decisions.” Id. at

466. Though T.G.’s arguments are moot, we elect to consider their merits under

the public interest exception in order to add to the instructive body of law.

II. Admissibility [16] T.G. first argues that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Bimberg to testify as

an expert witness. Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

Any one or a combination of the factors listed in Evidence Rule 702(a) may

serve as the basis for a witness qualifying as an expert. Bennett v. Richmond, 960

N.E.2d 782, 789 (Ind. 2012). Thus, a witness may testify as an expert if their

opinion is based on any “peculiar knowledge or experience not common to the

world” that may aid the finder of fact. Aillones v. Minton, 77 N.E.3d 196, 199

(Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). On the other hand, a witness

who knows no more than the average person may not testify as an expert.

Pinkins v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1079, 1087-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

[17] “A trial court’s determination regarding the admissibility of expert testimony

under Rule 702 is a matter within its broad discretion and will be reversed only

for abuse of that discretion.” TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 8 of 13 201, 216 (Ind. 2010). “The trial court's decision is presumed correct, and the

party challenging the decision has the burden of persuading us that the trial

court abused its discretion.” Id.

[18] T.G. claims the trial court abused its discretion in qualifying Dr. Bimberg as an

expert in psychiatry because she was not a board-certified physician. According

to T.G., Dr. Bimberg was merely a psychiatry resident who had begun her

residency just one day before T.G.’s admission to the hospital and had only

worked sixteen days by the time she testified at T.G.’s commitment hearing.

[19] In support of her claim, T.G. points to this Court’s decision in K.K. v. Cmty.

Health Network, Inc., 215 N.E.3d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). There, it was held

that the trial court did not abuse discretion in qualifying a hospital psychiatry

resident as an expert in psychiatry, in part, because the resident was six months

into her residency. Id. at 385. But the Court did not establish six months of

residency as the minimum standard for qualifying a doctor as an expert in their

field, as T.G.’s argument suggests. Indeed, the Court further noted that the

doctor had “completed four years of medical school,” “held a temporary

medical license,” “identified psychiatry as the focus of her training,” and “had

experience treating adults with ‘various mental disorders.’” Id.

[20] Here, Dr. Bimberg similarly testified that she was a medical school graduate

who had focused her training on the field of psychiatry. Thus, she was “familiar

with mental illnesses,” “how they’re diagnosed,” and the “symptoms that

support those diagnoses.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 19. Dr. Bimberg also testified that she

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 9 of 13 held a temporary license to practice medicine during her psychiatry residency.

And though this advanced training had just begun, Dr. Bimberg examined 64

patients between the start of her residency and the day of her testimony.

[21] Given the evidence of Dr. Bimberg’s education, training, knowledge, and

experience as well as the deference given to trial courts in these circumstances,

we cannot say the court erred in qualifying Dr. Bimberg as an expert witness

under Evidence 702(a).

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence [22] T.G. next argues that Community presented insufficient evidence to support her

temporary involuntary civil commitment. To obtain an individual’s involuntary

civil commitment, a “petitioner is required to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that: (1) the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely

disabled; and (2) detention or commitment of that individual is appropriate.”

Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e). Here, as to the first enumerated element, the trial

court found that T.G. was mentally ill and gravely disabled. T.G. challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to support each of these findings.

[23] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an individual’s

involuntary civil commitment, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the

credibility of witnesses. Civ. Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 27

N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015). Instead, we consider the evidence and reasonable

inferences most favorable to the judgment, and we will affirm if a reasonable

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 10 of 13 trier of fact could have found the necessary elements proven by clear and

convincing evidence. Id.

A. Mentally Ill [24] Indiana Code § 12-7-2-130(1) defines “mental illness” to mean “a psychiatric

disorder that: (A) substantially disturbs an individual’s thinking, feeling, or

behavior; and (B) impairs the individual’s ability to function.”

[25] At the civil commitment hearing, Dr. Bimberg testified that she diagnosed T.G.

with “unspecified psychosis,” a “chronic mental illness.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 21.

Among other things, Dr. Bimberg based this diagnosis on T.G.’s display of

paranoid delusions that she was being “trafficked” by unspecified gangs, her

workplace managers, and family members. Id. at 20. Dr. Bimberg also testified

that T.G.’s delusions made conversing with her “very difficult” and had caused

her to be kicked out of homeless shelters in the past. Id. at 38.

[26] T.G. claims that Community failed to prove “T.G.’s so called ‘delusions’ were

a result of mental illness as opposed to a natural fear in response to real life past

trauma.” Appellant’s Br. p. 20. But this is merely an invitation for this court to

reweigh the evidence, which is not our role. See T.K., 27 N.E.3d at 273. The

record contains clear and convincing evidence that T.G. had a psychiatric

disorder that substantially disturbed her thinking and impaired her ability to

function. Therefore, sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that

T.G. was mentally ill.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 11 of 13 B. Gravely Disabled [27] Indiana Code § 12-7-2-96(1) defines “gravely disabled” to mean “a condition in

which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to

harm because the individual . . . is unable to provide for that individual’s food,

clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs.”

[28] At the civil commitment hearing, Dr. Bimberg testified that T.G. had been

living on the street for several months prior to her emergency detention and that

her trafficking concerns had caused her to be kicked out of homeless shelters in

the past. Tr. Vol. II, p. 33. Due to unspecified “safety concerns,” T.G. would

not disclose to Dr. Bimberg where she might go upon her discharge from the

hospital. Id. at 22. And T.G.’s own testimony at the hearing indicated that she

did not have a plan.

[29] Emphasizing her Goodwill employment and purported savings, T.G. claims

that Community failed to prove hotels were not a viable means of shelter. But

this, too, is an impermissible request for us to reweigh the evidence. See T.K., 27

N.E.3d at 273. The record contains clear and convincing evidence that, as a

result of her mental illness, T.G. was in danger of coming to harm because she

was unable to provide herself with shelter. Therefore, sufficient evidence

supported the trial court’s finding that T.G. was gravely disabled.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 12 of 13 Conclusion [30] Finding the trial court’s judgment supported by sufficient, admissible evidence,

we affirm.

Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Kathryn E. DeWeese Joshua L. Radicke Bunger & Robertson Bloomington, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-MH-1930 | January 9, 2025 Page 13 of 13