In Re: Swartz, V.F. Appeal of: Swartz, V.F., 1091 MDA 2015

Valerie F. Swartz had a long history of serious mental-health issues (major depression, possible schizoaffective features, PTSD, anorexia nervosa, borderline personality disorder) and multiple prior involuntary commitments and suicide attempts over ~12 years.
She had been involuntarily hospitalized at Warren State Hospital (WSH) and, after improvement, WSH filed a §305 petition (May 5, 2015) seeking up to an additional 90 days of involuntary inpatient treatment to complete discharge planning.
Treating psychiatrist Dr. Promila Sood testified Swartz had improved but remained in need of inpatient care until housing, medications, and outpatient providers were secured; WSH was the least restrictive appropriate setting.
Swartz asked to remain voluntarily rather than be recommitted; hospital declined to accept her as a voluntary admission due to her history.
The Mental Health Review Officer (MHRO) recommended continued involuntary inpatient treatment; the trial court, after review, ordered up to 90 days of further involuntary treatment.
Swartz appealed, arguing the court lacked clear and convincing evidence that she presented a danger to herself or others sufficient to justify involuntary treatment under the MHPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Swartz)	Defendant's Argument (WSH/MHRO)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported involuntary recommitment under MHPA §305/§304	Swartz: no clear and convincing proof she was a danger to herself/others; only those with imminent risk of death/serious bodily injury may be involuntarily treated	WSH/MHRO: treating psychiatrist’s testimony plus extensive history of attempts/self-harm and lack of discharge plan show clear present danger and need for up to 90 more days	Court affirmed: record supports clear and convincing evidence of danger to herself and need for further involuntary inpatient treatment to secure post-discharge arrangements

In re T.T., 875 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for involuntary commitment: court must find evidence to justify commitment)
Commonwealth v. Helms, 506 A.2d 1384 (Pa. Super. 1986) (recommitment requires clear and convincing evidence of a clear and present danger)
In re S.B., 777 A.2d 454 (Pa. Super. 2000) (prior committed patients may be recommitted without proof of a new overt act when recent history and risk support a reasonable probability of serious harm)
In re S.O., 492 A.2d 727 (Pa. Super. 1985) (appellate vigilance warranted in involuntary commitment cases despite expiration of commitment period)