MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 20 2017, 9:20 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Joel M. Schumm Andrew B. Howk
Indianapolis, Indiana Hall, Render, Killian,
Heath & Lyman
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
In the Matter of the Civil July 20, 2017
Commitment of M.R., Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Respondent, 49A04-1701-MH-191
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Steven R.
St. Vincent Hospital and Health Eichholtz, Judge
Care Center, Inc. d/b/a St. Trial Court Cause No.
Vincent Stress Center, 49D08-1701-MH-183
Appellee-Petitioner
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] M.R. has been diagnosed with severe depression and borderline personality
disorder. In January 2017, St. Vincent Stress Center sought the involuntary
commitment of M.R. after she stabbed herself in the abdomen. The trial court
held a hearing on the petition on January 5, 2017, at which there was testimony
and discussion regarding the possibility of a future transfer from St. Vincent to a
state facility. The trial court ultimately granted a regular commitment to St.
Vincent but stated, “[if] the hospital decides to attempt to transfer to the state
hospital [in the future], so be it.” Tr. p. 27. Following the hearing, the trial
court granted the petition for involuntary commitment, finding that M.R. was
in need of custody, care, and treatment at St. Vincent Stress Center.
[2] M.R. ostensibly appeals from that order, but is not challenging the involuntary
commitment or the trial court’s order that she be placed at St. Vincent Stress
Center. Instead, she directs our attention to a notice filed with the trial court on
February 28, 2017 (nearly one month after she initiated this appeal), indicating
the intention of St. Vincent Stress Center to transfer M.R. to Richmond State
Hospital. She objects to the transfer, arguing that proper procedures were not
followed. But there is no court order from which she is appealing; instead, this
transfer appears to have been an administrative decision. 1
1
There are no trial court orders appearing in the Chronological Case Summary following the February 28,
2017, notice that the superintendent of Richmond State Hospital had authorized M.R.’s transfer to that
facility. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 3, 25-27.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 2 of 4
[3] Indiana Code section 12-26-11-6 provides that a committed individual whose
commitment is transferred “may, within thirty (30) days after the transfer,
petition the committing court for an order setting aside the transfer . . . .” Here,
M.R. did not file a petition with the trial court to set aside the transfer, nor did
the trial court ever issue a ruling regarding the transfer. Under these
circumstances, there is no trial court order before us to review.
[4] M.R. insists that she appeals from the initial order of commitment, arguing that
her placement is an integral part of that commitment. We do not disagree, but
simply note that the trial court’s final order of commitment orders that she be
placed in St. Vincent Stress Center. Appealed Order p. 2. Consequently, there
is nothing in that order with which she disagrees.
[5] She also contends that St. Vincent’s position requires a conclusion that patient
transfers “never squarely fall within an appealed order and the only remedy for
a deficient transfer lies within the trial court.” Reply Br. p. 4. We disagree.
Our General Assembly has set forth a statutory procedure that requires that a
committed individual seeking to set aside a transfer must first seek relief with
the trial court. If the individual is not satisfied with the trial court’s ruling, then
she is free to seek appellate review of that order. Here, however, there is no
such order for us to review.
[6] Finally, M.R. contends that neither her immediate family nor her attorney were
notified of the transfer. As noted above, M.R. would have thirty days from the
date of transfer—not of the filing of the notice of the pending transfer—to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 3 of 4
challenge it in a trial court. If, for some reason, M.R.’s husband and other
family members were genuinely unaware that she was transferred to an entirely
different facility for longer than thirty days after the transfer, she would
certainly be entitled to argue to the trial court that the alleged lack of actual
knowledge of the transfer extended the deadline. Here, however, she did not
even try, so we have no trial court order regarding her transfer (or her right to
contest it) to review.
[7] The only order properly before us is the trial court’s initial order committing
M.R. involuntarily to St. Vincent Stress Center. She does not contest the
involuntary commitment or the placement at St. Vincent. Therefore, we affirm.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1701-MH-191 | July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 4