In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: M.L. v. Eskenazi Health/Midtown Mental Health CMHC
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 281
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- M.L., a 30-year-old, was admitted to Eskenazi Hospital on emergency detention in Nov 2016, released, then re-admitted after psychiatric observations of manic, paranoid, and delusional behavior; he refused medications and was restrained for safety.
- Dr. Aimee Patel petitioned for involuntary commitment and testified M.L. was dangerous to himself/others and gravely disabled.
- The trial court entered a temporary involuntary commitment (up to 90 days) and included a special outpatient condition prohibiting use of alcohol or nonprescribed drugs.
- The commitment order expired, making the appeal technically moot, but the court invoked the public‑interest exception and reached the merits.
- The majority struck the alcohol/drug prohibition for lack of evidentiary support and denied defendant’s request for appellate attorney’s fees; one judge dissented, arguing waiver for failure to object at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported the special outpatient condition prohibiting alcohol/nonprescribed drugs | M.L.: Condition unsupported — record contains no evidence he used or abused substances, so condition not reasonably related to treatment or public safety | Eskenazi: Condition appropriate; M.L. failed to object at trial (waiver) and substance prohibition is plainly related to treatment and safety | Majority: Reverse in part — strike the alcohol/drug prohibition for insufficient evidence; trial court’s commitment otherwise affirmed |
| Whether appeal was moot or should be dismissed | M.L.: Acknowledged order expired but urged public‑interest exception | Eskenazi: Argued mootness/waiver should end appeal | Court: Applied public‑interest exception and proceeded to merits (issue likely to recur) |
| Whether Eskenazi is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees under Ind. App. R. 66(E) | M.L.: Appeal was proper and grounded in precedent; no bad faith or frivolousness | Eskenazi: Appeal frivolous/bad faith because issue was waived | Court: Denied fees — appeal not frivolous or in bad faith; caution against chilling appeals (majority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (burden of proof in civil commitment requires heightened due‑process protections)
- Golub v. Giles, 814 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (special outpatient conditions must bear a reasonable relationship to treatment/public safety; struck drug prohibition where no evidence of use)
- M.M. v. Clarian Health Partners, 826 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (striking alcohol/drug condition where record lacked evidence of substance use)
- In re Commitment of T.K., 993 N.E.2d 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (discussion of mootness and public‑interest exception in commitment appeals)
- In Re Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. 1987) (recognizing societal importance of commitment procedures and individual dignity)
- Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (standards and restraint for awarding appellate fees under App. R. 66(E))
- Benton County Remonstrators v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Benton County, 905 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (waiver principle: issues not raised at trial generally forfeited on appeal)
- Carson v. Ross, 509 N.E.2d 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (preservation requirement for appellate review)