In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.J. v. Eskenazi Health (mem. dec.)
This text of In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.J. v. Eskenazi Health (mem. dec.) (In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.J. v. Eskenazi Health (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 20 2016, 6:22 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Anna Kirkman Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In The Matter of the Civil January 20, 2016 Commitment of S.J., Court of Appeals Cause No. Appellant, 49A02-1505-MH-390 Appeal from the Marion Superior v. Court The Honorable Steven Eichholtz, Eskenazi Health, Judge Appellee. Trial Court Cause No. 49D08-0905-MH-21678
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-MH-390 | January 20, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] S.J. appeals her involuntary civil commitment. We affirm.
Issue [2] S.J. raises one issue, which we restate as whether there is sufficient evidence to
support the trial court’s determination that she is gravely disabled.
Facts [3] In 2009 and 2010, S.J. was hospitalized because of mental health issues. In
January 2015, S.J.’s family sought an emergency detention after S.J.
disappeared for three months and returned acting as if nothing had happened.
S.J. was wearing the same clothes she was wearing when she left. S.J. received
inpatient care but was resistant to treatment. She was then placed in temporary
respite care to create a discharge plan. Because of concerns about S.J.’s ability
to care for herself, a petition requesting an extension of S.J.’s commitment was
filed. Following a hearing, the trial court concluded that S.J. was gravely
disabled and extended S.J.’s commitment. S.J. now appeals.
Analysis [4] S.J. argues there is insufficient evidence that she is gravely disabled.1 “The
liberty interest at stake in a civil commitment proceeding goes beyond a loss of
1 Although S.J. mentions a patient’s right to judicial review of a proposed treatment plan, we consider this to be part of her overall challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and not a separate issue.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-MH-390 | January 20, 2016 Page 2 of 6 one’s physical freedom, and given the serious stigma and adverse social
consequences that accompany such physical confinement, a proceeding for an
involuntary civil commitment is subject to due process requirements.” Civil
Commitment of T.K. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 27 N.E.3d 271, 273 (Ind. 2015).
To satisfy the requirements of due process, the facts justifying an involuntary
commitment must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that not only
communicates the relative importance our legal system attaches to such a
decision, but also has the function of reducing the chance of inappropriate
commitments. Id.
[5] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 12-26-2-5(e), 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.” “Gravely disabled” is defined as:
a condition in which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to harm because the individual:
(1) is unable to provide for that individual’s food, clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs; or
(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of that individual’s judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in the individual’s inability to function independently.
Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we will
affirm if, considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences
supporting it, without weighing evidence or assessing witness credibility, a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-MH-390 | January 20, 2016 Page 3 of 6 reasonable trier of fact could find the necessary elements were proven by clear
and convincing evidence. T.K., 27 N.E.3D at 273.
[6] S.J. claims that, although she does not behave as her family and doctors would
like her to, there is scant evidence that she is unable to provide for her own
needs or function independently. To the contrary, the evidence shows that S.J.
suffers from schizophrenia and is “extremely paranoid.” Tr. p. 10. When she
arrived at the hospital, S.J. was “slightly malnourished, disheveled, with poor
hygiene, very confused and disorganized.” Id. at 9. While hospitalized, S.J.
refused to let medical students interview her, rarely let her doctor into her
room, and only ate packaged food. Her doctor testified that there is no depth or
substance to S.J.’s conversations, with S.J. repeatedly stating she is “perfectly
fine” and “doesn’t need medication.” Id. at 11. S.J. “believes that she has
nothing wrong with her and does not need any assistance finding housing,
getting an income, receiving treatment. She wants to do everything on her own
and we just believe that at this time she’s too sick to do that.” Id.
[7] As examples of S.J.’s behavior, the doctor stated that S.J. spent hours on the
phone trying to buy a plane ticket to Mexico and trying to obtain a bank loan
by posing as a hospital employee. S.J. refused offers to help pay for medication
and waited five or six weeks to agree to receive Medicaid assistance. The
doctor explained that S.J. will not change her clothes and suggested that S.J.
had gone a year without changing her clothes. S.J. also refused to allow a
medical exam despite her doctor’s concerns about S.J.’s leg, which had a sore
and appeared swollen. According to her doctor, when asked how she will
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1505-MH-390 | January 20, 2016 Page 4 of 6 provide for herself, S.J. says she will “sell stuff” but offers no “solid information
to help . . . her own discharge plan.” Id. at 14. S.J. is also reluctant to take
medication to treat her mental illness and has been off of her medication for five
years. Her doctor testified that S.J. will not voluntarily take medication. S.J.’s
doctor testified that S.J. is “[a]bsolutely” gravely disabled. Id. at 13. She also
testified that S.J.’s reasoning and judgment are so impaired that she is
“[a]bsolutely” at risk of harm. Id. at 15.
[8] This is consistent with S.J.’s testimony that she disagrees with the
schizophrenia diagnosis and does not feel like she needs medication. S.J.
testified that she could get money by selling her things, connecting with her
church, and asking her cousin. S.J. did not specify where she had been living
prior to her hospitalization in January but suggested she was spending time in
libraries and train stations. Regarding her three-month absence from
Indianapolis, S.J. described traveling to Flint, Michigan, via bus and train,
packing only a few items, and not washing her clothes during that time.
[9] This evidence, including her own testimony, shows that S.J. is unwilling to
accept that she suffers from schizophrenia and to treat her disease. She is also
unwilling to take help when it is offered to her. Further, S.J. does not have
financial resources to support herself and could not offer a clear plan for
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of S.J. v. Eskenazi Health (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-the-civil-commitment-of-sj-v-eskenazi-health-mem-indctapp-2016.