The Indiana Court of Appeals (the “Court”) recently reversed a regular commitment for a schizophrenic patient because the hospital failed to offer any evidence that the patient was dangerous to himself or others and that he was unable to function independently. The Court found the hospital did not present clear and convincing evidence. In re. Matter of Civil Commitment J.A., No. 26A-MH-606 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2026).
Background
J.A. has received care for schizophrenia since at least 2021. In October 2025, J.A. was admitted to the hospital for treatment and was discharged after a week. Three days later, he was readmitted and remained hospitalized until, on November 20, 2025, Marion County Superior Court 8 (the “Trial Court”) ordered temporary commitment because J.A. was mentally ill and gravely disabled.
J.A.’s treating psychiatrist invoked IC § 12-26-6-11 and requested the Trial Court extend J.A.’s temporary commitment to a regular commitment. The psychiatrist testified J.A. met all five of the diagnostic criteria, planned to stop taking medication at the end of the commitment, lacked insight into his condition, did not believe he actually suffered from schizophrenia and missed 11 out of 20 scheduled appointments. The psychiatrist also testified, “schizophrenia is a lifelong illness that we do not have a cure for, and so we expect he will continue to need chronic treatment.” In re. Matter of Civil Commitment J.A., No. 26A-MH-606, at 3.
The Trial Court ordered regular commitment on the basis that J.A. suffered schizophrenia, was dangerous to himself and was gravely disabled. J.A. appealed.
Analysis
An order for commitment must be premised on clear and convincing evidence that an individual is: (1) mentally ill; and (2) either dangerous or gravely disabled. I.C. § 12-26-2-5(e). J.A. appealed, arguing the hospital did not present sufficient evidence on the second prong of the test, which would establish that J.A. was either dangerous or gravely disabled. The Court agreed.
The psychiatrist focused her testimony on J.A.’s diagnosis, missed appointments, lack of medication management and symptoms. However, she did not provide testimony about whether J.A. was dangerous to himself or others. IC § 12-7-2-53. Accordingly, the Court found this testimony did not clearly and convincingly prove J.A. was in danger of coming to harm because he was unable to provide for his needs or function independently. IC § 12-7-2-96. The Court held that J.A.’s denial of illness and refusal of medication, alone, did not establish grave disability by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the Court reversed J.A.’s regular commitment.
Practical Takeaways
- Must Present Clear and Convincing Evidence: To successfully order a regular commitment, a hospital must present clear and convincing evidence of either dangerousness or grave disability. Failure to present this evidence could result in a reversal on appeal.
- Denial of Illness and Refusal to Medicate Do Not Meet Standard: A patient’s denial of an illness and refusal to medicate do not meet the clear and convincing standard required to establish a grave disability.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- Ryan McDonald at (317) 429-3671 or rmcdonald@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Special thanks to Kelsey Linzell Bauer, Summer Associate, for her assistance with the preparation of this article.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot, outside of an attorney-client relationship, answer specific questions that would constitute legal advice.
