Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
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. Jun 09 2014, 9:16 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
KARA L. REAGAN
Stafford Law Office, LLC
Bloomington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of COMMITMENT OF E.L., )
)
E.L., )
)
Appellant-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. 53A05-1311-MH-571
)
INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH– )
BLOOMINGTON HOSPITAL and )
TERRI KLINGELHOEFER, MA, LSW, )
)
Appellees-Petitioners. )
APPEAL FROM THE MONROE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable MaryEllen Diekhoff, Special Judge
Cause No. 53C07-1310-MH-363
June 9, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
E.L. appeals her temporary involuntary commitment at Indiana University Health-
Bloomington Hospital (“Hospital”) contending that the evidence was insufficient to
support the commitment for a period of up to ninety days and the order for forced
medication. Sua sponte, we address the dispositive issue of whether E.L.’s appeal should
be dismissed as moot because E.L.’s commitment concluded on January 13, 2014.
We dismiss.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In a “Statement in Support of Immediate Detention of Mentally Ill and Dangerous
Person,” dated October 6, 2013, Dr. Robert Skelton, a Hospital physician, stated that E.L.
was in a manic state of mind and was “continually attempting to find son and neglecting
self care by not eating or drinking, continually show[ing] a verbal diatribe of thoughts
and ideas that are not of a person in good mental health.” Appellant’s App. at 15. The
report stated that E.L.’s random actions could lead to people being aggressive toward her
and could lead to her being harmed. Id. According to physician’s emergency statement
of Dr. Matthew Runnebohm, another Hospital physician, E.L. was “currently manic,”
“yelling and cursing,” and “calling 911 repeatedly.” Id. at 9. On October 10, 2013, Terri
Klingelhoefer, a health officer of the Hospital, filed a petition for the temporary
involuntary commitment of E.L. Id. at 10-11. E.L. was appointed counsel, and a hearing
on the petition was held on October 15, 2013.
In the “Emergency Report Following Detention,” dated October 10, 2013 and
signed by Dr. Carey Mayer, Dr. Mayer opined that E.L. was suffering from “[b]ipolar
disorder manic episode,” is dangerous or gravely disabled, and “requires continuing care
2
and treatment.” Id. at 16. Dr. Mayer recommended that E.L. be detained in “this
facility” pending the hearing. Id. The trial court held a hearing at which Dr. Perry
Griffith, a board certified psychiatrist, testified that he had seen E.L. once in 2012 and
now in 2013. Tr. at 2. Dr. Griffith testified that E.L. has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder
and opined that E.L. is acutely dangerous to herself because of her disorganization and
inability to provide for her basic needs. Id. E.L. testified at the hearing on her own
behalf. Following the hearing, the trial court granted the Hospital’s petition and issued an
Order for Involuntary Commitment of E.L. for a temporary period not to exceed ninety
days. E.L. filed a Motion to “Correct Error and for Order to Refrain from Administering
Medication,” which the trial court denied on October 23, 2013. Appellant’s App. at 2, 27-
32. E.L. timely filed a notice of appeal.1
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
A trial court may order a temporary mental health commitment where a petitioner
shows that the patient is mentally ill and either dangerous to herself or others or gravely
disabled. Ind. Code § 12-26-6-1. E.L. contends that the evidence was insufficient to
support the commitment order.
E.L. admits that her “period of temporary involuntary commitment in this matter
expired on January 13, 2014, and that she is no longer subject to the order.” Appellant’s
Br. at 9. Accordingly, E.L. acknowledges this appeal is moot. Id.; see G.Q. v. Branam,
917 N.E.2d 703, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (appeal is moot where patient has been
1
E.L. filed her Appellant’s Brief on January 21, 2014, about one week after she was released
from involuntary commitment.
3
discharged from involuntary commitment). An exception to the general rule requiring us
to dismiss moot appeals is the exception for issues of great public interest that are likely
to recur. See G.Q., 917 N.E.2d at 706 (moot case may be decided on its merits when it
involves questions of great public interest that are likely to recur). Although we agree
with E.L. that the issue of involuntary commitment is one of great public interest that is
likely to recur, we decline to apply that exception here given the posture of this particular
appeal and our corresponding standard of review. Because the Hospital and
Klingelhoefer have not filed an appellees’ brief in this matter, our standard of review is
that of prima facie error. Deckard v. Deckard, 841 N.E.2d 194, 199 (Ind. App. 2006).
An issue pertaining to involuntary commitment is of great public importance and
warrants a more thorough review than that in which only one party has filed a brief and
participates in the appeal. Therefore, we decline to apply that exception to this appeal.
Dismissed.
MAY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
4
In the Matter of Commitment of E.L., E.L. v. Indiana University Health- Bloomington Hospital and Terri Klingelhoefer, MA, LSW
Combined Opinion