Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The negative collateral consequences a patient potentially faces from an involuntary temporary commitment order makes review of an expired order “meaningful” and not moot, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled, though it ultimately affirmed the commitment on the merits.
M.T., who has a history of mental illness and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, has lived with his parents since July 2022. During that time, he didn’t take his prescribed medication, and his behavior got worse — including not sleeping for days on end and not eating regularly.
In January, M.T. took his mother’s phone and ran away from the house. He didn’t have identification or money, and his family went out to search for him.
Eventually, M.T. appeared at a pizzeria and told staff he hit his head and was confused. M.T. was then transported to a nearby emergency department, where doctors were unable to identify a physical injury.
He was moved to Fairbanks Behavioral Health within the Community Health Network.
There, Dr. Ishrat Bhat examined M.T. and diagnosed him with schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and catatonia. Bhat’s diagnosis was based on M.T.’s previous hospitalizations — including one in 2022, when his medical records indicated schizophrenia — as well as Bhat’s own observations.
Bhat concluded that, due to M.T.’s mental illness, he was unable to provide himself with food, clothing, shelter and other essential needs.
Community Health then petitioned for M.T.’s involuntary temporary commitment to reestablish his routine with prescription medication. Bhat testified in support of M.T.’s temporary commitment.
M.T.’s father also testified in support of M.T.’s commitment. But M.T. testified against his own commitment and denied suffering from mental illness.
The Marion Superior Court found M.T. was gravely disabled and granted Community Health’s petition.
M.T. appealed, and on April 24, about a week before his initial brief was due, his 90-day term of commitment expired.
M.T. argued that the order for his involuntary temporary commitment, if invalid but left in place, would add to the history of hospitalizations on his medical record and make future involuntary commitment proceedings against him more likely to be successful.
The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding “this negative collateral consequence M.T. potentially faces makes our review of his involuntary temporary commitment order meaningful and not moot.”
The Court of Appeals cited In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: C.P. v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc. d.b.a. St. Vincent Stress Center, 22A-MH-2960, a Court of Appeals opinion also issued Thursday by the same panel.
In C.P., the court held that an appeal from an expired involuntary civil commitment order was not moot and was properly before the court “based on the negative collateral consequences that that respondent may face under federal and state firearm restrictions that accompany involuntary civil commitment orders.”
“M.T.’s involuntary civil commitment order carries at least one similar and significant negative collateral consequence. We have long recognized that a ‘history of mental illness requiring hospitalizations’ may be probative of whether a person is ‘gravely disabled and should be involuntarily committed,’” the opinion says, citing Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
A respondent’s history of being committed might contribute to a future adverse finding that they should be committed again, the Court of Appeals ruled.
“That consequence, which is adequately developed in the record and in the briefing here, is sufficient to place M.T.’s appeal from his expired involuntary civil commitment order within Indiana’s case law that such appeals are not moot under the collateral-consequences doctrine,” the opinion says.
Bhat’s testimony in support of the commitment petition proves the point, the Court of Appeals ruled, because he emphasized M.T.’s previous hospitalizations.
Community Health argued the court’s holding that M.T.’s appeal is meaningful and not moot is contrary to the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in E.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 188 N.E.3d 464 (Ind. 2022). In E.F., the Supreme Court said any possible collateral-consequences analysis in temporary-commitment appeals was “left open.”
“Community Health interprets that language to mean that in fact any such analysis was closed shut,” the opinion says. “We think that, if our Supreme Court had intended that outcome, it would have explicitly said so.”
Still, in addressing the merits of the appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled Community Health presented sufficient evidence to support M.T.’s temporary commitment.
“A reasonable fact-finder could conclude from those facts that M.T. was gravely disabled,” the opinion says. “And M.T.’s arguments to the contrary on appeal simply seek to have this Court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.”
Judge Paul Mathias wrote the opinion. Judges Nancy Vaidik and Rudolph Pyle concurred.
The case is In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: M.T. v. Community Health Network, 23A-MH-341.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.