IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0180
Filed August 19, 2015
IN RE THE MATTER OF W.A.K.,
Alleged to be Seriously
Mentally Impaired
W.A.K.,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E.
Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Respondent appeals from the determination she was seriously mentally
impaired. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Zachary S. Hindman of Bikakis, Mayne, Arneson, Hindman & Hisey, Sioux
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Assistant
Attorney General, and Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
W.A.K. appeals from the determination she is seriously mentally impaired
as defined in Iowa Code section 229.1(17) (2015). She contends none of the
statutory elements are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
I.
“An involuntary civil commitment proceeding is a special action that is
triable to the court as an action at law.” In re B.T.G., 784 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2010). Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in involuntary
commitment proceedings are reviewed for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.
App. P. 6.907; In re B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425, 428 (Iowa 2013). The allegations in
an application for involuntary commitment must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. In re J.P., 574 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1998). For
evidence to be clear and convincing “there must be no serious or substantial
doubt about the correctness of a particular conclusion drawn from the evidence.”
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A district court’s findings are
binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. See id.
II.
To support an involuntary commitment under Iowa Code chapter 229, the
court must find the person is “seriously mentally impaired” or has a “serious
mental impairment” as defined in section 229.1(17). That definition provides:
“Seriously mentally impaired” or “serious mental impairment”
describes the condition of a person with mental illness and because
of that illness lacks sufficient judgment to make responsible
decisions with respect to the person’s hospitalization or treatment,
and who because of that illness meets any of the following criteria:
3
a. Is likely to physically injure the person’s self or others if
allowed to remain at liberty without treatment.
b. Is likely to inflict serious emotional injury on members of
the person’s family or others who lack reasonable opportunity to
avoid contact with the person with mental illness if the person with
mental illness is allowed to remain at liberty without treatment.
c. Is unable to satisfy the person’s needs for nourishment,
clothing, essential medical care, or shelter so that it is likely that the
person will suffer physical injury, physical debilitation, or death.
W.A.K.’s brother applied to have her involuntarily committed. She was
taken into immediate custody and examined. The physician’s report pursuant to
section 229.10(2) listed a diagnosis of “bipolar disorder, type I—currently manic
with psychotic features.” Before the commitment hearing the doctor amended
the primary diagnosis to “amphetamine induced mania,” and changed the
recommendation to “mandatory follow through with intensive individual therapy”
and “mandatory chemical dependency evaluation . . . along with mandatory
follow through with recommendations.” At the hearing, the doctor testified
W.A.K.’s “condition cleared” without psychotropic medication and once W.A.K.
stopped using Adderall, “the mania resolved on its own” and “this is a transient
type of presentation, as opposed to a bipolar disorder” and the diagnosis was “for
the episode itself,” which had resolved once W.A.K. went off the Adderall. The
doctor saw this as an abuse issue, not a chronic or persistent mental illness.
At the time of the hearing, W.A.K. was not suffering from a mental illness.
The amphetamine-induced mania had resolved on its own. W.A.K. was not a
person “with” a mental illness, see Iowa Code § 229.1(17), so substantial
evidence does not support a finding she “is seriously mentally impaired.” See id.
§ 229.12 (emphasis added).
4
Because our conclusion on this finding is dispositive, we need not address
the findings she “lacks sufficient judgment to make responsible decisions with
respect to the person’s hospitalization or treatment,” or the findings concerning
dangerousness. See id. § 229.1(17).
III.
Because the court’s finding that W.A.K. was seriously mentally impaired is
not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the decision of the court and
remand for dismissal of the application.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.