LW v. MIDTOWN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER

Citation823 N.E.2d 702
Decision Date31 January 2005
Docket NumberNo. 49A02-0409-CV-745.,49A02-0409-CV-745.
PartiesIn the Matter of the COMMITMENT OF L.W., Appellant-Respondent, v. MIDTOWN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, Appellee-Petitioner.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Ruth Johnson, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

OPINION

BAKER, Judge.

Appellant-respondent L.W. appeals his involuntary commitment to Midtown Community Health Center (Health Center), a mental health facility. Specifically, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he was dangerous or gravely disabled. Finding that Health Center did not carry its burden of proof with respect to the elements of dangerousness and grave disability, we reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the order of involuntary commitment.

FACTS

On August 5, 2004, the police came to L.W.'s Indianapolis apartment, pulled a gun on L.W., handcuffed him, and brought him to the hospital. Prior to being handcuffed, L.W. "was holding an iron object in this hand." Tr. p. 6. The record does not disclose the reason that the police were dispatched to L.W.'s apartment.

On August 6, 2004, Health Center filed a Petition for Emergency Detention of Mentally Ill and Dangerous Person, alleging that L.W. suffers from a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbs his thinking, feeling, or behavior, and impairs his ability to function. The petition further alleged that L.W. is a danger to himself or others.

A commitment hearing was held on August 13, 2004. Dr. Sandsrom was the sole witness at L.W.'s commitment hearing. Dr. Sandsrom stated that L.W. is agreeable to taking his medications in the hospital and understands that the medications might help him. Dr. Sandsrom further testified that L.W. has been pleasant and compliant while hospitalized and has not been dangerous to others or to himself. Dr. Sandsrom also stated that L.W.'s son was caring for him.

The trial court ordered L.W. to regular commitment, stating:

Based on the evidence and testimony given today and I think the Court will grant a regular commitment but I think what I'll do, I'll grant a periodic report within six months. It is obvious that [L.W.] has been off his med's [sic] for a number of months and needs the monitoring and structure in order to stay on his medication. So, we'll have a periodic report due in six months, which would be the thirteenth of March, right?

Tr. p. 15. In its findings, the trial court specifically found that L.W. suffers from a mental illness, that he is dangerous to himself and to others, that there are no family members who are able to care for him, and that he is gravely disabled because he has no insight into his illness, demonstrates poor judgment, and is unable to provide for his daily needs or to function independently. L.W. now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

In analyzing L.W.'s claim of error, we note that Health Center has failed to file an appellee's brief. When an appellee fails to submit a brief, we need not undertake the burden of developing an argument for him. State v. Isaacs, 794 N.E.2d 1120, 1122 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). Indiana courts apply a less stringent standard of review with respect to showings of reversible error when an appellee fails to file a brief. Id. Hence, we may reverse the trial court if an appellant establishes prima facie error. Id. Prima facie error is defined as "at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it." Knowles & Assoc. LLC v. Cook, 784 N.E.2d 1063, 1066 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). Civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protections. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979). Upon review of an order for involuntary commitment, we will consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all reasonable inferences therefrom. G.P.H. v. Giles, 578 N.E.2d 729, 733 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). A person may be involuntarily committed if the petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled. Ind. Code § 12-26-2-5(e)(1). For purposes of Indiana Code article 12-26, "gravely disabled" means:

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. "Dangerous" is defined as "a condition for which an individual, as a result of mental illness, presents a substantial risk that the individual will harm the individual or others." I.C. § 12-7-2-53.

Here, the trial court found L.W. to be gravely disabled because he had no insight into his illness and demonstrated poor judgment. However, Dr. Sandsrom testified that, "He has complied with his medication so then I guess he might have some insight, he understands it might help him." Tr. p. 8. When asked if he considered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • K.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. Health Care Ctr.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 22, 2009
    ...Civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protections. Commitment of L.W. v. Midtown Cmty. Health Ctr., 823 N.E.2d 702, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in commitment cases, we look only at the evidence and reason......
  • Jackson v. Ind. Adult Protective Servs.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 17, 2016
    ...v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 40 N.E.3d 507, 510 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (citing Commitment of L.W. v. Midtown Cmty. Health Ctr., 823 N.E.2d 702, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) ). To be “clear and convincing,” the existence of a fact must be probable. Id. (citing Lazarus Dep't Store......
  • T.D. v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Cmty. Mental Health Ctr.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 20, 2015
    ...that civil commitment is a significant deprivation of liberty that requires due process protections. Commitment of L.W. v. Midtown Cmty. Health Ctr., 823 N.E.2d 702, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). The liberty interest at stake in a civil commitment proceeding goes beyond a loss of one's physical fr......
  • J.S. v. Center for Behavioral Health
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 12, 2006
    ...allowed to stop taking her medication was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Commitment of L.W. v. Midtown Comm. Health Center, 823 N.E.2d 702, 704 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that there was no indication in the record that the patient was dangerous to himself or B. G......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT