In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: K.G. v. Community Health Network, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. FILED Jul 17 2019, 8:39 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Megan Shipley Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Jenny R. Buchheit Stephen E. Reynolds Gregory W. Pottorff Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: K.G., Appellant-Respondent, v. Community Health Network, Inc., July 17, 2019 Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-MH-1211 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Gerald S. Zore, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 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
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.
