Opinion
No. 6-020 / 05-0640
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, John S. Mackey, Judge.
The respondent appeals from the district court's orders finding him seriously mentally impaired. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
James A. Wetterling, Garner, for appellant.
Karen Salic, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
B.B. appeals from the district court's findings that he is seriously mentally impaired as defined by Iowa Code section 229.1(15) (2003). We review for the correction of errors at law. In re J.P., 574 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1998). The elements of serious mental impairment must be established by clear and convincing evidence, Iowa Code § 229.13 (2003), and the district court's findings of fact are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Id. "Seriously mentally impaired" is defined as:
[T]he condition of a person with mental illness and because of that illness lacks sufficient judgment to make responsible decisions with respect to the person's hospitalization or treatment, and who because of that illness meets any of the following criteria:
a. Is likely to physically injure the person's self or others if allowed to remain at liberty without treatment.
b. Is likely to inflict serious emotional injury on members of the person's family or others who lack reasonable opportunity to avoid contact with the person with mental illness if the person with mental illness is allowed to remain at liberty without treatment.
c. Is unable to satisfy the person's needs for nourishment, clothing, essential medical care, or shelter so that it is likely that the person will suffer physical injury, physical debilitation, or death.
Two hearings were conducted and two subsequent orders entered, annulling B.B.'s petition for writ of habeas corpus and denying a change of status request from involuntary, inpatient treatment to outpatient treatment. B.B. appeals from both rulings. While the district court found B.B.'s depression to satisfy the "mental illness" requisite in its March 21, 2005 order, Dr. Mark Lassise included in the Physician's Report dated March 15, 2005, that the "depression responds to appropriate medicine." Furthermore, by the April 6th hearing the testifying expert, Dr. Richard Rinehart, stated that the depression was resolved. He testified that B.B.'s only psychological diagnosis at that time was alcohol dependence in remission, as B.B.'s mild dementia resulted from his alcohol use and only exhibited neurological and not psychological symptoms. Accordingly, the district court changed its April 6th finding of "mental illness" to "alcohol dependence-mild dementia." Dr. Rinehart specifically testified that after consultation with B.B.'s other examining physicians, Dr. Seaton, Dr. Courtney and Dr. Blackmore, they all agreed neither B.B.'s alcohol dependence nor mild dementia would result in him being unable to satisfy his needs or result in harm to himself or others. Nonetheless, the district court found that clear and convincing evidence established that B.B. "suffers from a serious mental illness" under the criteria outlined in section 229.1(15). On this record, we cannot say that there is substantial evidence to support that finding. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Both parties cite to events which have transpired following the last hearing. No further appeals have been taken of subsequent rulings, and the information included in both briefs is outside of the record before us. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.10(1).