In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of M.R. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Center, Inc. d/b/a St. Vincent Stress Center (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 20, 2017
• Docket: 49A04-1701-MH-191
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 20 2017, 9:20 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Joel M. Schumm Andrew B. Howk Indianapolis, Indiana Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of the Civil July 20, 2017 Commitment of M.R., Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Respondent, 49A04-1701-MH-191 Appeal from the Marion Superior v. Court The Honorable Steven R. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Eichholtz, Judge Care Center, Inc. d/b/a St. Trial Court Cause No. Vincent Stress Center, 49D08-1701-MH-183 Appellee-Petitioner

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 1 of 4 [1] M.R. has been diagnosed with severe depression and borderline personality

disorder. In January 2017, St. Vincent Stress Center sought the involuntary

commitment of M.R. after she stabbed herself in the abdomen. The trial court

held a hearing on the petition on January 5, 2017, at which there was testimony

and discussion regarding the possibility of a future transfer from St. Vincent to a

state facility. The trial court ultimately granted a regular commitment to St.

Vincent but stated, “[if] the hospital decides to attempt to transfer to the state

hospital [in the future], so be it.” Tr. p. 27. Following the hearing, the trial

court granted the petition for involuntary commitment, finding that M.R. was

in need of custody, care, and treatment at St. Vincent Stress Center.

[2] M.R. ostensibly appeals from that order, but is not challenging the involuntary

commitment or the trial court’s order that she be placed at St. Vincent Stress

Center. Instead, she directs our attention to a notice filed with the trial court on

February 28, 2017 (nearly one month after she initiated this appeal), indicating

the intention of St. Vincent Stress Center to transfer M.R. to Richmond State

Hospital. She objects to the transfer, arguing that proper procedures were not

followed. But there is no court order from which she is appealing; instead, this

transfer appears to have been an administrative decision. 1

1 There are no trial court orders appearing in the Chronological Case Summary following the February 28, 2017, notice that the superintendent of Richmond State Hospital had authorized M.R.’s transfer to that facility. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 3, 25-27.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 2 of 4 [3] Indiana Code section 12-26-11-6 provides that a committed individual whose

commitment is transferred “may, within thirty (30) days after the transfer,

petition the committing court for an order setting aside the transfer . . . .” Here,

M.R. did not file a petition with the trial court to set aside the transfer, nor did

the trial court ever issue a ruling regarding the transfer. Under these

circumstances, there is no trial court order before us to review.

[4] M.R. insists that she appeals from the initial order of commitment, arguing that

her placement is an integral part of that commitment. We do not disagree, but

simply note that the trial court’s final order of commitment orders that she be

placed in St. Vincent Stress Center. Appealed Order p. 2. Consequently, there

is nothing in that order with which she disagrees.

[5] She also contends that St. Vincent’s position requires a conclusion that patient

transfers “never squarely fall within an appealed order and the only remedy for

a deficient transfer lies within the trial court.” Reply Br. p. 4. We disagree.

Our General Assembly has set forth a statutory procedure that requires that a

committed individual seeking to set aside a transfer must first seek relief with

the trial court. If the individual is not satisfied with the trial court’s ruling, then

she is free to seek appellate review of that order. Here, however, there is no

such order for us to review.

[6] Finally, M.R. contends that neither her immediate family nor her attorney were

notified of the transfer. As noted above, M.R. would have thirty days from the

date of transfer—not of the filing of the notice of the pending transfer—to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 3 of 4 challenge it in a trial court. If, for some reason, M.R.’s husband and other

family members were genuinely unaware that she was transferred to an entirely

different facility for longer than thirty days after the transfer, she would

certainly be entitled to argue to the trial court that the alleged lack of actual

knowledge of the transfer extended the deadline. Here, however, she did not

even try, so we have no trial court order regarding her transfer (or her right to

contest it) to review.

[7] The only order properly before us is the trial court’s initial order committing

M.R. involuntarily to St. Vincent Stress Center. She does not contest the

involuntary commitment or the placement at St. Vincent. Therefore, we affirm.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 4