In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: K.G. v. Community Health Network, Inc. (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 17 2019, 8:39 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Megan Shipley Jenny R. Buchheit Marion County Public Defender Agency Stephen E. Reynolds Indianapolis, Indiana Gregory W. Pottorff Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In the Matter of the Civil July 17, 2019 Commitment of: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-1211 K.G., Appeal from the Marion Superior Appellant-Respondent, Court v. The Honorable Gerald S. Zore, Senior Judge Community Health Network, Trial Court Cause No. Inc., 49D08-1804-MH-14925 Appellee-Petitioner. Pyle, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1211 | July 17, 2019 Page 1 of 3 Decision [1] K.G. appeals the trial court’s order of his involuntary temporary commitment and forced medication by injection, contending that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. As both parties concede, K.G. has been released from his involuntary temporary commitment. Therefore, this court cannot render effective relief to him. [2] “When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.” In re Commitment of J.B., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing In the Matter of Sue Ann Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). A moot case nevertheless may be decided on its merits when it “involves questions of great public interest”, id. (internal quotation omitted), and the question of how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts is certainly one of great importance to society. See In re Mental Commitment of M.P., 510 N.E.2d 645, 646 (Ind. 1987) (noting that the statute granting a patient the right to refuse treatment “profoundly affirms the value and dignity of the individual and the commitment of this society to insuring humane treatment of those we confine”). However, we have previously considered, discussed, and resolved the specific issues that K.G. raises in his appeal. See, e.g., B.D. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington, 121 N.E.3d 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019); (addressing the issues of temporary commitment and forced medication injections). We therefore dismiss K.G.’s appeal. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1211 | July 17, 2019 Page 2 of 3 [3] Dismissed. Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1211 | July 17, 2019 Page 3 of 3