In the Matter of the Commitment of: N.D.; N.D. v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Oct 24 2018, 7:56 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amy P. Payne Monroe County Public Defender’s Office Bloomington, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In the Matter of the Commitment of: N.D. October 24, 2018 N.D., Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court Appellant-Respondent, v. Indiana University Health Bloomington Hospital, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-1328 The Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff Trial Court Cause No. 53C07-1805-MH-168 Appellee-Petitioner. Kirsch, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 3 [1] In In re: Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208, (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we noted that the question of how persons subject to involuntary commitment are treated by our trial courts is a matter of great importance to both society and to the person who has been committed. Accordingly, our statutory and case law affirm that the value and dignity of the individual facing commitment or treatment is a matter of great societal concern. See Ind. Code 12-26-5-1 (establishing procedures for seventy-two-hour commitment); Ind. Code 12-26-62 (establishing procedures for ninety-day commitment); In re: Mental Health 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”) [2] Here, N.D. appeals the trial court order of her involuntary mental health commitment and forced medication contending that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. “When a court is unable to render effective relief to a party, the case is deemed moot and usually dismissed.” In re: J.B., 766 N.E.2d 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 3(Ind. 1991)). We have previously considered, discussed, and resolved the issues that N.D. raises here, and they are moot. See In re: Commitment of J.R., 766 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App., 2002) and In re Commitment of J.M., 62 N.E.3d 1208 (2016). [3] Dismissed. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-MH-1328 | October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
