J.B.F. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of McLennan County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-93-017-CV

J.B.F.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # MI920263

O P I N I O N

This is an appeal by Appellant J.B.F. from judgment which temporarily committed Appellant to the Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) for a period not to exceed ninety days. Appellant voluntarily admitted himself to the Veterans Hospital in Waco on December 18, 1992. On December 23, he left the hospital on an unauthorized absence. On December 28, Appellant's wife filed an application for Court-ordered Temporary Mental Health Services, and on December 29, an order of protective custody was issued. A hearing was held on December 30, resulting in a finding that there was probable cause to believe Appellant presents substantial risk of harm to himself or others to the extent that he should not remain at liberty pending a hearing on the application for court-ordered mental health services. A hearing on the application was held on January 6, 1993. Trial was before the County Judge who rendered judgment temporarily committing Appellant to the VAMC for a period not to exceed ninety days. Appellant appeals on two points of error.

Point one asserts: "The trial court erred in granting judgment and ordering commitment for court-ordered temporary mental health services of Appellant for a period of time not to exceed ninety days, for the reason that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support said judgment."

Section 574.034 of the Health and Safety Code provides three alternatives under which a person may be subject to involuntary treatment. Treatment can only be ordered upon determination by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1)the patient is mentally ill; and

(2)as a result of that mental illness:

(A)is likely to cause serious harm to himself;

(B)is likely to cause serious harm to others; or

(C)will, if not treated, continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress, will continue to experience deterioration of his ability to function independently, and is unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

Clear and convincing evidence is defined as that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. State v. Addington, (Tex.) 588 S.W.2d 569, 570.

Dr. Reddy testified that in his opinion J.B.F. was mentally ill at the time of the hearing; that J.B.F. is suffering from a bipolar disorder, manic, with severe psychotic features; that if J.B.F. were not treated, he would continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress; and that J.B.F. would continue to experience deterioration in his ability to function independently and be unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

Dr. Reddy further testified that he had personally observed J.B.F. and examined his past medical history; that J.B.F. was exhibiting threatening behavior toward staff members and did not sleep for several days while in the hospital; that J.B.F. left on an unauthorized absence from the hospital shortly after he was admitted; and that the police had to bring him back to the hospital because J.B.F. did not think he needed treatment. The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment. Point one is overruled.

Point two asserts: "The trial court erred in granting judgment and committing Appellant to court-ordered temporary mental health services as an in-patient at the Veterans Administration Hospital because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to show that this was the least restrictive setting available as required by Section 574.036, Texas Health and Safety Code."

Section 574.036 of the Health and Safety Code provides: "The judge shall order the mental health services provided in the least restrictive appropriate setting." Section 571.004 of the Code defines least restrictive appropriate setting as "treatment available that provides the patient with the greatest probability of improvement or cure; and is no more restrictive of the patient's physical or social liberties than is necessary to provide the patient with the most effective treatment and to protect adequately against any danger the patient poses to himself or others."

Dr. Reddy testified that J.B.F. was showing improvement in his behavior over a two-day period in the closed ward but was not yet stable; that it would not be in the best interest to place J.B.F. in the open ward because of the high probability that he would leave the hospital without permission as he had when placed in the open ward earlier. Dr. Reddy also testified that J.B.F. needed at least a couple of weeks in the closed ward to determine whether he will continue his stable condition.

Based on this testimony, the greatest probability of improvement or cure would be to keep J.B.F. in the closed ward in order to monitor his behavior. The trial court did not err in committing Appellant to court-ordered temporary mental health service as an in-patient. Point two is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Vance, and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 30, 1993

Do not publish