M.R. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 05 2020, 9:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael E. Hunt James L. Whitlatch
Rachel M. Rogers Kathryn DeWeese
Monroe County Public Defender’s Bunger & Robertson
Office Bloomington, Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

M.R., May 5, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-MH-3043
v. Appeal from the
Monroe Circuit Court
Indiana University Health The Honorable
Bloomington Hospital, Stephen R. Galvin, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause No.
53C07-1911-MH-443

Kirsch, Judge.

[1] M.R. appeals his temporary involuntary commitment at Indiana University

Health Bloomington Hospital (“Hospital”), contending that the evidence was

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 1 of 6
 insufficient to support the commitment for a period of up to ninety days and to

support the order for forced medication. Sua sponte, we address the dispositive

issue of whether M.R.’s appeal should be dismissed as moot because M.R.’s

commitment concluded on February 24, 2020.

[2] We dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History
[3] On November 18, 2019, M.R. was brought to the Hospital, and on that same

day, the Hospital prepared an application for emergency detention on the basis

that M.R. had “flooded his apartment,” was “tangential and paranoid[,]” and

was not taking care of [himself].” Tr. Vol. 2 at 5; Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 6.

The emergency detention application noted that M.R., who presented as

psychotic, was suffering from a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbed

his thinking, feeling, or behavior and impaired his ability to function and that

he had no insight and was suffering from impaired judgment. Appellant’s App.

Vol. II at 6. The accompanying physician’s emergency statement echoed the

allegations contained in the emergency detention application and also observed

that M.R. had been falling at his home and was decompensating. Id. at 7. On

November 20, 2019, the trial court issued an order approving the application for

emergency detention. Id. at 8.

[4] On November 21, 2019, the Hospital filed a report following emergency

detention (“report”), a petition for involuntary commitment (“commitment

petition”), and a physician’s statement. Id. at 9-15. The Hospital’s report stated

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 2 of 6
 that Hospital psychiatrist Dr. Michael Metrick (“Dr. Metrick”) examined M.R.

and found probable cause to believe M.R. was suffering from schizophrenia and

was gravely disabled. Id. at 11; Tr. Vol. 2 at 4-5. The commitment petition

alleged that M.R. presented a substantial risk that he would harm himself, was

gravely disabled as a result of his schizophrenia, was “paranoid [and]

delusional” and “impedes [his] understanding of providing [for his] basic

needs[,]” and that he did not have family, friends, or others willing and able to

assist him in meeting his basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Appellant’s

App. Vol. II at 9-10.

[5] On November 26, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the Hospital’s

commitment petition. Id. at 3. Dr. Metrick was the sole witness to testify at the

hearing. Tr. Vol. 1 at 2. His testimony addressed M.R.’s symptoms, including

hallucinations, which were consistent with schizophrenia and that M.R. was

not consistently taking his prescribed medication, Seroquel. Tr. Vol. 2 at 5-7.

Dr. Metrick also testified that, in his opinion, M.R. was gravely disabled. Id. at

7-8. Regarding M.R.’s substantially impaired judgment and its impact on his

ability to function independently, Dr. Metrick stated that M.R. has “a lack of

awareness of people attempting to assist him despite medical concerns[,]” has

“refused basic treatment, including a physical exam[,]” and that his

“understanding and consistency” in taking medication had been inconsistent.

Id. at 10. Dr. Metrick indicated that M.R. lacked insight into his own need for

psychiatric care or medical care. Id. He stated that the treatment plan was for

M.R. to be in an environment where he can take his medication consistently,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 3 of 6
 that commitment is the least restrictive environment for M.R, and that if M.R.

were to be discharged he would not have a safe place to go. Id. at 11. Dr.

Metrick also testified that he was seeking a forced medication order, which

would include treatment with Seroquel and the possibility of treatment with

other anti-psychotics such as Risperidone, Invega Sustenna, and Abilify

Maintenna, if Seroquel, Dr. Metrick’s preferred option, did not work. Id. at 12-

14. Dr. Metrick thought the benefits to M.R. of treatment with anti-psychotic

medication outweighed the possible side effects of the medication and would

help treat M.R.’s underlying schizophrenia. Id. at 14-15.

[6] On that same day, the trial court issued the temporary commitment order,

which found that M.R. suffers from schizophrenia and is gravely disabled as

defined in Indiana Code section 12-7-2-96. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 4. The

temporary commitment order authorized a period of commitment in the

Hospital not to exceed ninety days and forced medication treatment with

Seroquel, Risperidone, Invega Sustenna, and Abilify Maintenna. Id. at 4-5.

M.R. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision
[7] M.R. appeals the temporary commitment order, which was issued on

November 26, 2019 and was set to expire on February 24, 2020. M.R. argues

that the evidence is insufficient to support: (1) the temporary commitment

order’s finding that he is gravely disabled; and (2) the forced medication order.

Here, we are faced with the threshold issue of mootness as M.R.’s period of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 4 of 6
 temporary involuntary commitment has lapsed. Therefore, this court cannot

render effective relief to him.

[8] When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed

moot and is usually dismissed. R.P. v. Optional Behavior MHS, 26 N.E.3d 1032,

1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been

that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the

parties before the court.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121

N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019). Although moot cases are usually dismissed,

our courts have 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[,]” typically involving issues that are likely to recur. In re Commitment of

J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “The question of how persons

subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts is one of great

importance to society. Indiana statutory and case law affirm that the value and

dignity of the individual facing commitment or treatment is of great societal

concern.” Id.

[9] We decline to apply the mootness exception in this case. This court has

previously considered, discussed, and resolved the issues M.R. raises in his

appeal. See, e.g., B.D. v. Ind. Univ. Health Bloomington Hosp., 121 N.E.3d 1044

(Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (addressing the sufficiency of the evidence for a forced

medication order); T.A. v. Wishard Health Serv., Midtown Cmty. Mental Health

Ctr., 950 N.E.2d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (addressing the sufficiency of the

evidence for a temporary commitment order’s finding that an individual is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 5 of 6
 gravely disabled). We are careful to consider the merits of involuntary

commitments only when there is an issue of great public importance. Here,

based on these facts, we do not find an issue of great public importance.

Therefore, we dismiss M.R.’s appeal.

[10] M.R.’s period of temporary involuntary commitment has expired, and we

cannot provide effective relief. Therefore, this matter is moot, and, accordingly,

we dismiss.

[11] Dismissed.

Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MH-3043 | May 5,2020 Page 6 of 6