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.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 10, 2018
• Docket: 18A-MH-1147
• Status: Published

Opinion

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