In the Matter of the Commitment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 993 N.E.2d 245

Over a week in Feb. 2013, T.K. made 25+ threatening calls to Adult and Child, including threats to "cut off the genitals of staff." Facility staff reported he was hostile, psychotic, delusional, and in need of help.
Emergency detention application filed Feb. 8, 2013; warrant issued and T.K. was admitted to the VA Medical Center around Feb. 11, 2013.
While hospitalized, T.K. threatened treating psychiatrist Dr. Corey Trobaugh (e.g., taking his children, tasering him) and made additional threats to VA staff, and refused medication or to acknowledge illness.
Dr. Trobaugh examined records, diagnosed chronic paranoid schizophrenia (disorganized speech, persecutory delusions, grandiosity, paranoia), believed T.K. posed a danger, and recommended regular commitment and treatment (inpatient then outpatient).
After a Feb. 19, 2013 hearing the trial court ordered a regular commitment (≥90 days) and medication as prescribed; T.K. appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence for dangerousness and that the commitment was the least restrictive alternative.
The Court of Appeals found the case not dismissed as moot under the public‑importance exception and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness	T.K.: discharge makes appeal moot	VA: public‑importance exception applies	Case decided on merits under the great‑public‑interest exception
Dangerousness (sufficiency)	T.K.: threats were verbal only; no history of carrying out violence; insufficient to show substantial risk	VA: numerous violent threats, hospital threats, diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, prior commitments, refusal of meds => substantial risk	Evidence (threats, diagnosis, history, refusal of treatment) was clear and convincing; trial court could find dangerousness without an actual violent act
Least restrictive alternative & forced medication	T.K.: regular commitment and medication order not shown to be least restrictive; medication order improperly overrides refusal	VA: prior commitments, deteriorating condition, need for inpatient stabilization and outpatient follow‑up; treating psychiatrist conducted assessment and weighed risks/benefits	Regular commitment appropriate as least restrictive to provide long‑term inpatient then outpatient care; treating physician satisfied M.P. requirements for involuntary medication

Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (due process requires heightened proof for civil commitment because of loss of liberty)
In re Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. 1987) (standards for overriding patient's right to refuse medication)
In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (mootness and public‑importance exception for commitment appeals)
Commitment of S.T., 930 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (framework for assessing involuntary commitment: behavior leading to admission, in‑hospital behavior, relation to mental illness)
Commitment of M.M., 826 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (recognizing extraordinary curtailment of liberty in commitment and need for proof of dangerousness)
M.Z. v. Clarian Health Partners, 829 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (court need not wait for an actual violent act when threats and behavior show substantial risk)
Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review for sufficiency in commitment proceedings)
In re Commitment of Steinberg, 821 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (reversal where finding of dangerousness was speculative)
Commitment of G.M., 743 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (review looks to evidence most favorable to trial court)
Jones v. State, 477 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (verbal threats and seclusion supported dangerousness finding)