Commitment of T.K. T.K. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

• Decision Date: 21 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 49A05–1303–MH–100.,49A05–1303–MH–100.
• Citation: 993 N.E.2d 245
• Parties: In the Matter of the COMMITMENT OF T.K. T.K., Appellant–Respondent, v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellee–Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

993 N.E.2d 245

In the Matter of the COMMITMENT OF T.K.T.K., Appellant–Respondent,

v.Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellee–Petitioner.

No. 49A05–1303–MH–100.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Aug. 21, 2013.

Valerie K. Boots, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Tami R. Nantz, Staff Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.

OPINION

BRADFORD, Judge.

An application for the emergency detention of Appellant–Respondent T.K. was filed on February 8, 2013. The application alleged that T.K. was a mentally ill and dangerous person. That same day, the trial court issued an order granting the application. T.K. was admitted to the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (“the VA Medical Center”) on or about February 11, 2013. Following a February 19, 2013 evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an order of regular commitment, finding that T.K. was suffering from mental illness and was dangerous to others. On appeal, T.K. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the trial court's order. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

During the week leading up to February 8, 2013, T.K. made over twenty-five threatening phone calls to Adult and Child Inc. (“Adult and Child”). ¹ In these threatening phone calls, T.K. threatened to “cut off the genitals of staff” and made threats to the director of the facility. Because of the large number and threatening nature of the calls, on February 8, 2013, Adult and Child filed an application for the emergency detention of T.K. The application indicated that staff at the facility noted that they found T.K. to be hostile, actively psychotic, delusional, and in need of immediate help. The trial court granted the application; issued a warrant for T.K.'s arrest; and issued an order allowing for T.K. to be detained, examined, and treated at the VA Medical Center.

T.K. was detained about three days later and admitted to the VA Medical Center. While at the VA Medical Center, T.K. was treated by Dr. Corey Trobaugh. During the course of his treatment, T.K. threatened Dr. Trobaugh by telling Dr. Trobaugh that he could hurt him and take his money and clothes. T.K. also asked Dr. Trobaugh if he had children, and, when Dr. Trobaugh did not respond, T.K. told Dr. Trobaugh “well I can take them.” Tr. p. 14. T.K. later told Dr. Trobaugh that he could “strap [Dr. Trobaugh] into a chair and taser [him].” Tr. p. 14. Dr. Trobaugh felt threatened by T.K.'s words and menacing demeanor.

T.K. also threatened the staff at the VA Medical Center, who considered T.K.'s behavior “as being largely hostile, aggressive, and threatening in nature.” Tr. p. 14. T.K. threatened to make the VA “pay” if he were committed, stating that he would “have [a] behavioral outburst that would cost the VA millions of dollars.” Tr. pp. 14, 15.

After meeting with T.K. on two separate occasions and reviewing T.K.'s medical history, which included a documented history of mental illness and prior mental illness-related commitments, Dr. Trobaugh diagnosed T.K. with chronic paranoid schizophrenia. In making this diagnosis, Dr. Trobaugh noted that T.K. exhibited disorganized speech, delusions of persecution, and grandiosity as well as paranoia. Dr. Trobaugh noted that T.K. did not show any insight into his mental illness, denied that he suffered from mental illness, and refused medication.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 19, 2013, for the purpose of determining whether a continued commitment of T.K. to the VA Medical Center was warranted. During the evidentiary hearing, Dr. Trobaugh acknowledged that T.K. had yet to act on any of the threats levied against anyone at Adult and Child or the VA Medical Center. For his part, T.K. attempted to diminish the serious nature of his threats against Dr. Trobaugh by construing the threats as a “miscommunication.” Tr. p. 17. Dr. Trobaugh testified that he believed that T.K. posed a danger to others and indicated that he believed that a regular commitment was necessary to ensure that T.K. received the necessary treatment and care. Upon the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the trial court determined that without treatment, T.K. was a danger to others. The trial court issued an order of regular commitment, which involuntarily committed T.K. to the care of the VA Medical Center for a term of at least ninety days. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. The Question of Mootness

T.K. concedes that he has been discharged from his involuntary commitmentat the VA Medical Center for some time now. Therefore, this court cannot render effective relief to him. See In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). “When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.” Id. (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind.1991)). However, although moot cases are usually dismissed, Indiana courts have long recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an exception to the general rule when the case involves questions of “great public interest.” Id. (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d at 37). Typically, cases falling in the “great public interest” exception contain issues that are likely to recur. Id.

“The question of how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts is one of great importance to society.” Id. “Indiana statutory and case law affirm that the value and dignity of the individual facing commitment or treatment is of great societal concern.” Id. (citing In re Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645, 646 (Ind.1987) (noting that the statute granting a patient the right to refuse treatment “profoundly affirms the value and dignity of the individual and the commitment of this society to insuring humane treatment of those we confine”)). The instant case involves the proof necessary for involuntary commitment. Because this is an issue of great public importance that is likely to recur, we will address it here. See generally Commitment of S.T. v. Cmty. Hosp. N., 930 N.E.2d 684, 687 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); Commitment of M.M. v. Clarian Health Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90, 94 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d at 799.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

T.K. contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that an involuntary commitment at the VA Medical Center was warranted. Upon review, “we consider three factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances support an involuntary commitment: the gravity of the behavior leading to hospital admission, behavior in the hospital, and the relationship between problematic behaviors and the person's mental illness.” Commitment of S.T., 930 N.E.2d at 690. In the instant matter, T.K. specifically argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the trial court's determination that he was dangerous. T.K. also argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the trial court's determination that a regular commitment order reflected the least restrictive environment suitable for his treatment.

A. Standard of Review

Proceedings for involuntary commitment are subject to federal due process requirements. For the ordinary citizen, commitment to a mental hospital produces “a massive curtailment of liberty” and thus “requires due process protection.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979); see also C.J. v. Health and Hosp. Corp. of Marion County, 842 N.E.2d 407 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). The loss of liberty produced by an involuntary commitment is more than a loss of freedom resulting from the confinement. Commitment to a mental hospital “can engender adverse social consequences to the individual; ... [w]hether we label this phenomena stigma or choose to call it something else ... we recognize that it can occur and that it can have a very significant impact on the individual.” Addington, 441 U.S. at 425, 99 S.Ct. 1804.

Commitment of S.T., 930 N.E.2d at 687.

Our court has previously recognized that the extraordinary curtailment of liberty involved with a commitment to a mental hospital. See Commitment of M.M., 826 N.E.2d at 97 (citing Commitment of Gerke, 696 N.E.2d 416 (Ind.Ct.App.1998)). “Because everyone exhibits some abnormal conduct at one time or another, loss of liberty calls for a showing that the individual suffers from something more serious than is demonstrated by idiosyncratic behavior.” Id. “ ‘There is no constitutional basis for confining a mentally ill person who is not dangerous and can live safely in freedom.’ ” Id. (quoting Commitment of J.B. v. Midtown Mental Health Center, 581 N.E.2d 448, 451 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied ).

When reviewing a challenge to sufficiency of the evidence with respect to commitment proceedings, we look to the evidence most favorable to the trial court's decision and draw all reasonable inferences from that decision. In re the Commitment of G.M., 743 N.E.2d 1148, 1150–51 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). Moreover, if the trial court's commitment order represents a conclusion that a reasonable person could have drawn, we will affirm the order even if other reasonable conclusions are possible. Id.

When we review the evidence supporting such a judgment, we may neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. In re Mental Commitment of W.W., 592 N.E.2d 1264, 1266 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). Where the evidence is in conflict, we are bound to view only that evidence that is most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Id.

In commitment proceedings, the burden falls on petitioner 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).

Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034, 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied.

B. Whether the...