Opinion
No. 04-07-00607-CV
Delivered and Filed: January 9, 2008.
Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-MH-2365, Honorable Oscar Kazen, Judge Presiding.
AFFIRMED
Sitting: ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice, STEVEN C. HILBIG, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.S. appeals the trial court's temporary mental health commitment order asserting that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's findings. We affirm the trial court's order.
The trial court's order in this case was based on its findings, from clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) A.S. is mentally ill; and (2) as a result of that mental illness, A.S. is: (i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress; (ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of her ability to function independently, which is exhibited by her inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for her basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and (iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment. Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 574.034 (a)(1), (2)(C) (Vernon 2003). In addition, the trial court found evidence of a recent overt act or a continuing pattern of behavior that tended to confirm A.S.'s distress and deterioration in her ability to function. Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 574.034 (d) (Vernon 2003). Although A.S. does not challenge the trial court's finding that she is mentally ill, she contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the remaining findings because the meager circumstantial evidence gives rise to equal inferences and lacks a factual basis.
Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the allegations sought to be established. In re E.T., 137 S.W.3d 698, 699 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, no pet.). In reviewing A.S.'s legal sufficiency challenge, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings, including every reasonable inference in favor of those findings, to determine whether more than a scintilla of evidence supports the challenged findings. Id. We must assume that the trier of fact resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable trier of fact could do so, and we must disregard all contrary evidence that a reasonable trier of fact could have disbelieved or found to be incredible. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). In deciding whether the State met its clear and convincing burden, we will sustain a legal sufficiency challenge if the evidence is insufficient to produce in the mind of the fact-finder a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the facts. Id.; In re E.T., 137 S.W.3d at 699. In considering A.S.'s factual sufficiency challenge, we must give due consideration to evidence that the factfinder could reasonably have found to be clear and convincing. In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d at 266. "If, in light of the entire record, the disputed evidence that a reasonable factfinder could not have credited in favor of the finding is so significant that a factfinder could not reasonably have formed a firm belief or conviction, then the evidence is factually insufficient." Id.
Dr. Kathleen Harrison testified that A.S. has bipolar one disorder with her most recent episode mixed with psychotic features. Dr. Harrison stated that the condition substantially impairs A.S.'s thoughts, perception of reality, emotional process, and judgment. Dr. Harrison stated that A.S. was not forthright in discussing her symptoms or her hospitalization. A.S. was hospitalized after she took an overdose of pain medication in the parking lot of University Hospital. A.S. was given the pain medication for her knee; however, Dr. Harrison believes A.S. is a "bit psychotic" about the knee pain and A.S. believes her knee is broken even though the x-ray and medical records reveal no indentifiable injury. Dr. Harrison testified that A.S. is suffering severe abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress. Dr. Harrison stated that A.S. continues to show a pattern of manic behavior. The morning of the hearing, she threw herself to the ground and refused to get up. She told the nurse her babies were dying of cancer. A few days before, she told a social worker that Dr. Harrison was a tall blond woman "who waved a rose under her nose." A.S. was hospitalized on two prior occasions but was unwilling to discuss her history or symptoms. Based on her recent deterioration while hospitalized, Dr. Harrison suspected that A.S. was not taking her medication. Dr. Harrison stated that A.S. could not make a rational or informed decision with regard to treatment.
We disagree that the evidence presented was meager circumstantial evidence subject to equally competing inferences. Furthermore, although A.S. contends that the evidence lacked a factual basis, the testimony of Dr. Harrison referenced in this opinion was admitted into evidence without objection. A.S. was hospitalized after she overdosed on pain medication. A.S. believed her knee was broken even though no medical evidence supported that belief. Dr. Harrison testified A.S. was experiencing substantial mental deterioration of her ability to function independently. She based her opinion on A.S.'s inability to follow the proper dosage on her pain medication which led to her hospitalization and her subsequent actions in the hospital of throwing herself to the ground and refusing to get up because of her belief that her knee was broken. Dr. Harrison opined that her mental illness would continue to cause confusion and "she could easily overdose again." A.S.'s deterioration suggested she was not taking her medication. A.S. denied her symptoms and was not participating in her treatment. In addition to believing Dr. Harrison "waved a rose under her nose," A.S. told the trial judge at the end of the hearing she would work with Dr. Harrison if she "had seen her before today." A.S. also told the trial judge that the "meds that [she] take[s] are in legal dialogue."
The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's findings. The order of the trial court is affirmed.