Opinion
No. 3-848 / 03-0085.
Filed December 10, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joel D. Novak, Judge.
T.M. appeals from the district court's order for involuntary hospitalization and treatment. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Jesse Macro, Jr., Des Moines, for appellant.
John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Daniel Flaherty, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On December 17, 2002, Des Moines police took T.M. into custody after finding him in a local department store holding an inhaler that he claimed was a bomb. T.M. was brought to the Broadlawns Hospital emergency room for evaluation and treatment the same day.
Rachel Henry, the social worker assigned to T.M.'s case, filed an application requesting T.M.'s involuntary hospitalization under Iowa Code section 229.6 (2003) because she believed he was seriously mentally impaired. She would later testify at T.M.'s hospitalization hearing that T.M. claimed to have special powers, refused to take prescribed medications, and smoked gerbil food. Dr. JoAnne Macasaet, the physician appointed by the court to examine T.M., testified T.M. needed to be admitted for treatment because he posed a risk of injury to himself or others, suffered from manic depressive illness with psychotic features, and lacked the judgmental capacity for treatment.
T.M.'s testimony at the hearing included the following:
I have requested several different times that they would release me to another hospital for another doctor's opinion, they have refused to do so. . . . [If] you're going to try to go ahead with the commitment proceeding, Your Honor, I would like to have my second doctor's evaluation and their crisis team formation, and if you still proceed, when I have the second doctor's formation, then I reserve my appeal rights.
T.M.'s testimony was consistent with earlier handwritten notes to the judge requesting a second medical opinion concerning his mental impairment. The record does not indicate that T.M. received a second opinion. See Iowa Code § 229.10(1) (entitling respondent to separate examination by a physician of own choice).
The trial judge, citing Dr. Macasaet's testimony, found T.M. was seriously mentally impaired and ordered his immediate hospitalization for psychiatric evaluation and appropriate treatment. On appeal from the trial judge's order for hospitalization, T.M. argues: "The respondent-appellant was denied the opportunity to have a second opinion regarding his mental health condition and diagnosis in violation of Iowa Code Section 229.10."
II. Standard of Review
An involuntary hospitalization proceeding is triable as an ordinary action at law. In re Oseing, 296 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Iowa 1980). Our review is for errors at law. B.A.A. v. Chief Med. Officer, Univ. of Iowa Hosps., 421 N.W.2d 118, 120 (Iowa 1988).
III. Mootness
Polk County, citing a January 27, 2003, order by another trial judge dismissing subsequent proceedings requesting T.M.'s involuntary hospitalization, argues T.M.'s appeal in this case is moot. In support of this contention, Polk County has included a copy of the relevant order in its brief. That order is captioned "In the Matter of [T.M.], Alleged to be Seriously Mentally Impaired." The order states: "This matter is dismissed, [Polk County] has failed to establish the respondent is a danger to himself or others at this time."
An appeal is deemed moot if the issue becomes nonexistent or academic and, consequently, no longer involves a justiciable controversy. In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Iowa 2001). We generally refrain from reviewing moot issues. Polk County Sheriff v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 594 N.W.2d 421, 425 (Iowa 1999); Shannon v. Hansen, 469 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991). Matters, like the order cited by the county, which are outside of the record in this case and have transpired during or since the appeal, are properly considered in the resolution of a mootness claim. In re L.H., 480 N.W.2d 43, 45 (Iowa 1992).
Absent any claim for relief other than dismissal of the county's involuntary hospitalization or other accommodation of T.M.'s request for a second opinion, we have not been asked to grant T.M. any greater relief than that ordered in the January 27, 2003, order finding that he was not seriously mentally impaired. Because the controlling question of T.M.'s mental impairment has been resolved in his favor after this appeal was filed, there is no justiciable question left for our consideration. Moreover, there is no claim, and we do not believe the issue presented is of such public importance that any exception to the mootness doctrine is implicated. See In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d at 704 (finding an exception "where matters of public importance are presented and the problem is likely to recur").
T.M.'s appeal is accordingly dismissed as moot.