G.N., Appellant-Respondent, v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH BLOOMINGTON HOSPITAL (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] G.N. appeals his temporary involuntary commitment to Indiana University Health-Bloomington Hospital (IU Health), claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the commitment order. Specifically, G.N. contends that IU Health failed to prove that he was gravely disabled.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 22, 2025, G.N. went to IU Health to obtain treatment for pain in his left foot. Upon examination, it was discovered that a bone in his foot was infected. He told the IU Health staff that the infection occurred because he had an MRI. G.N. was treated with IV antibiotics but he refused oral antibiotics and necessary surgery. Soon thereafter, IU Health's psychiatric staff was contacted to examine G.N. It was determined that G.N. suffered from schizophrenia because of his delusional thoughts, hallucinations, and paranoia.

[4] The next day, IU Health filed a petition for involuntary commitment (the Petition), alleging that G.N. was mentally ill and gravely disabled because his delusions were causing him to decline necessary medical care for his foot that put him at risk of harm or death. Dr. Leah Stalnaker completed the accompanying physician's statement (the Statement) and concluded that G.N. was suffering from psychosis because he believed that he had healing powers and would be cured if he “urinat[ed] on his toes.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 11. Dr. Stalnaker further noted that G.N. had bathed himself with bleach at the hospital and that he was at risk of contracting sepsis for refusing medical care. It was also stated that G.N. lacked a “clear source of shelter and/or income.” Id. Dr. Stalnaker opined that G.N. was in need of care, custody and treatment at IU Health.

[5] The trial court conducted a hearing on the Petition on May 28, 2025. Dr. Gregory Rose testified on behalf of IU Health and explained that he diagnosed G.N. with schizophrenia because G.N. exhibited “psychotic symptoms including delusional thought content.” Transcript at 6. Dr. Rose also testified that while G.N. agreed to injectable antibiotic treatments, he refused to take antipsychotic medications. Dr. Rose was aware that G.N. had prior hospitalizations at other mental health facilities and he noted that G.N. was homeless with no income and that he was unable to care for his essential needs. Dr. Rose believed that G.N. could not make rational decisions regarding his medical care for his foot due to his psychotic symptoms. Hence, Dr. Rose believed that G.N. was gravely disabled because “he could not care for himself in a safe manner in the community.” Id. at 7.

[6] Dr. Rose also testified that a podiatrist recommended that G.N. undergo surgery to remove the infection. G.N. declined the surgery and it was believed that without surgery G.N. could lose part of his foot. G.N. rejected the schizophrenia diagnosis, and he refused to take an oral antibiotic for the infection because he believed that IU Health would dilute that medication with antipsychotic drugs.

[7] Dr. Rose sought a forced medication order for anti-psychotic drugs and an additional antibiotic for G.N. Although the goal was to stabilize G.N. and discharge him into the community, Dr. Rose recommended that G.N. undergo inpatient treatment. He did not believe that outpatient treatment was appropriate because of the severity of G.N.’s psychotic symptoms and his refused medical care. Dr. Rose maintained that G.N.’s prognosis was “very poor” without inpatient treatment. Id. at 14.

[8] G.N. also testified at the hearing. In response to a question from his counsel as to whether he was willing to have IU Health treat his foot, he said, “yes and no.” Id. at 17. “Well, ah, conflict of interest on another case. I didn't want to get all into it with IU [Health], but there was a settlement out of Court, ah, with another case that's got a statute of limitations, ah, ah, with the foot.” Id. at 17. G.N. further testified that he did not need any further psychiatric help from IU Health. Although G.N. contemplated going to another psychiatric facility, he claimed that his credentials were stolen and he could not pay for treatment.

[9] Following the hearing, the trial court issued its Order of Commitment on May 29. The trial court found, among other things, that G.N. was suffering from schizophrenia and was gravely disabled, that he was in need of commitment, and that IU Health was the appropriate facility where G.N. could receive rehabilitation and care for a temporary period not to exceed ninety days.

[10] G.N. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] In Indiana, an individual who is alleged to be mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled may be committed to a facility for not more than ninety days under Ind. Code § 12-26-6-1. We will affirm a civil commitment order if—considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment—a reasonable factfinder could have found the necessary statutory elements proven by clear and convincing evidence. J.F. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 256 N.E.3d 1260, 1270 (Ind. 2025). We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id.

[12] A petitioner seeking an involuntary commitment must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” both that (1) the individual “is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled” and (2) commitment “is appropriate.” I.C. § 12-26-2-5. G.N. claims that IU Health failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he was gravely disabled.¹

“Gravely disabled” means a condition in which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to harm because the individual:

(1) is unable to provide for that individual's food, clothing, shelter, or other essential human needs; or

(2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of that individual's judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in the individual's inability to function independently.

Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96. As this statute is written in the disjunctive, a petitioner need only prove that the respondent “was unable to provide for his basic needs or that his judgment, reasoning, or behavior was so impaired or deteriorated that it resulted in his inability to function independently.” In re Commitment of D.S., 109 N.E.3d 1056, 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)(emphasis added).

[13] Although the trial court's order did not state the section of the statute upon which it relied when determining that G.N. was gravely disabled, it heard considerable evidence to support its finding under either prong. To be sure, Dr. Rose provided detailed testimony at the commitment hearing regarding the substantial impairment in G.N.’s judgment, reasoning, and behavior that caused G.N.’s inability to function independently and care for himself in a safe manner.

[14] G.N. claimed that his foot infection occurred as the result of an MRI, and Dr. Rose confirmed G.N.’s refusal of needed medication for the infection and his schizophrenia. G.N. rejected the schizophrenia diagnosis, was delusional about having “healing powers,” and he believed that “urinating on his feet” would cure the infection in his foot. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 12. G.N. lacked a clear source of shelter and income and he bathed himself in bleach while at the hospital. When considering these circumstances, Dr. Rose testified that G.N. was at risk of sepsis or even death as a result of refusing medical treatment for his foot infection.

[15] The trial court also heard G.N.’s testimony, during which he displayed a lack of insight and/or acceptance into the seriousness of both his mental and physical condition and the benefits of treatment. In addition to rejecting the schizophrenia diagnosis, G.N. claimed that he did not need any psychiatric treatment and refused to take any recommended antipsychotic drugs. G.N. also refused oral antibiotics for his infection, and he declined necessary foot surgery. The evidence demonstrated that G.N.’s psychosis impaired his ability to understand the circumstances and gravity of his infection and to make a reasonable decision regarding necessary treatment.

[16] G.N. argues that he was not gravely disabled because there was no evidence that he “appeared malnourished” when he arrived at the hospital, he “came to the hospital on his own accord,” and he was complying “with some of the treatment” for his infected foot. Appellant's Brief at 13. These are improper requests to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility. See J.F., 256 N.E.3d at 1270.

[17] In sum, we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that G.N. is in danger of coming to harm because he has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in his inability to function independently and is gravely disabled. See, e.g., A.O. v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc., 206 N.E.3d 1191, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (finding sufficient evidence of grave disability based on patient's lack of insight into her condition and her delusional thoughts compromised her treatment, judgment, and ability to function independently). Thus, we affirm the order of commitment.

[18] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   G.N. does not challenge the trial court's determination that he is mentally ill.

Altice, Chief Judge.

May, J. and Foley, J., concur