In the Matter of the Civil Commiment of T.K. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (NFP)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. Apr 03 2014, 5:45 am ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOEL M. SCHUMM Indianapolis, Indiana CHADWICK C. DURAN Office of Regional Counsel U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.K., Appellant-Respondent, vs. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH VA MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A02-1310-MH-878 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Gerald S. Zore, Judge Cause No. 49D08-9906-MH-582 April 3, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge On rehearing, T.K. argues that this Court s memorandum decision contains a factual error that is material to the outcome of the case. He is mistaken. In our Statement of the Facts, we stated that the VA Medical Center s Application for Emergency Detention of Mentally Ill and Dangerous Person alleged that T.K. threatened to kill his ex-wife s husband and children. In our Discussion of the Issues section of the decision, we stated that T.K. threatened to kill his ex-wife. T.K. is correct that this is a factual misstatement because he threatened to kill his ex-wife s husband and children and not his ex-wife. However, this factual error is not material to the outcome of the case. If we remove this misstatement from our analysis, the remaining evidence supports T.K. s involuntary commitment. Once this statement is removed, T.K. s petition raises no question other than the sufficiency of the evidence, which has a well-established standard that guides us on appellate review and was fully considered and discussed by this court in our original decision. We advise counsel that a petition whose success depends upon our ignoring the constraints placed upon us has no chance of success. Maberry v. State, 748 N.E.2d 881, 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Accordingly, we grant rehearing for purposes of correction and clarification but deny relief. FRIEDLANDER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur. 2

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.