Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,339 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Indiana State Categories







Berryhill v Parkview Hospital

Case No. 02A04-1108-SC-400 (IN Ct. App., Feb. 16, 2012)

Raymond Dale Berryhill, who had suffered a stroke and other health problems, became agitated and fought with his wife. His family persuaded him to go to the emergency room at Parkview Hospital (“Parkview”), where he voluntarily checked himself in and underwent some medical tests. Berryhill became loud and aggressive. Berryhill‟s physician was concerned that he might be a danger to himself or others, so he ordered him to be taken to a secured room and sedated. Two Parkview security guards tried to calm Berryhill down, but he resisted and demanded to go home, so they escorted him to the secured room and placed him in restraints. After Berryhill‟s outburst, his wife filed an application for Berryhill to be detained and examined at Parkview Behavioral Health, from which he was released two days later.

Berryhill sued Parkview, alleging that the security guards‟ actions constituted false imprisonment. The trial court concluded that Parkview was immune from liability based on a statute that covers persons who assist in detentions. Berryhill now appeals, claiming that the immunity statute does not apply because he was not detained for purposes of the statute until after his wife filed the application for detention. We disagree with Berryhill and affirm the trial court‟s judgment.

Facts and Procedural History



The facts most favorable to the trial court‟s judgment are that on August 25, 2007, Berryhill became agitated and argued with his wife, Kay. They fought over the TV remote control, and Berryhill grabbed Kay‟s arm and pushed her onto the bed. At approximately 11:20 a.m., Kay called 911. According to the 911 incident report, Kay requested an ambulance for Berryhill “due to his head hurting from a prior stroke and brain surgery” and informed the operator that he “also battered her during the incident.” Plaintiff‟s Ex. 1. Emergency workers and police officers arrived at the Berryhills‟ home. The emergency workers tried to persuade Berryhill to go to the emergency room, but he declined. The police officers asked Kay if she wanted to have Berryhill arrested, and she declined. The emergency workers and police officers then left the Berryhills‟ home.
 

 

Judge(s): Terry A. Crone
Jurisdiction: Indiana Court of Appeals
Related Categories: Torts
 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Jerry Ummel

 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Elaine Brown
Terry Crone
Melissa May

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
David Kruse Kruse & Kruse PC

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Mark Baeverstad Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP
Andrew Palmison Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
id. at 380 (emphases added). again, the italicized words are handwritten. to this article. his parents, wife, and daughter to parkviews emergency room, where they arrived at opinion - for publication at 4:10 p.m., berryhill signed an "authorization to (1) is unable to provide for that individuals food, clothing, shelter, or other essential because berryhill failed to establish that parkview (through its employees, the security raymond d. berryhill may be mentally ill and dangerous and is in need of a shot all against [his] will on 8-25-07." appellants app. at 32. berryhill later named family. dr. pollander documented berryhills medical history, including a stroke and cranial to function. the term includes mental retardation, alcoholism, and addiction to narcotics or dangerous drugs." informed the operator that he "also battered her during the incident." plaintiffs ex. 1. parkview hospital, ) legislature intended to leave healthcare facilities and their employees powerless to detain of the treatment room where two security guards grabbed me one on each side. ,,i said i just want to go home. problem with anger, but since his stroke in november 2004, it has accelerated. in the last day immunity statute does not apply because he was not detained for purposes of the statute until 2003) (citations omitted). we have also said that vs. ) no. 02a04-1108-sc-400 we have said that our objective when construing a statute indiana code section 12-26-2-6 because he was restrained before he was detained for to indiana code section 12-26-5-1, which says: of the whole act, and will carry out such intention as thus obtained. statute that covers persons who assist in detentions. berryhill now appeals, claiming that the parkview. on december 20, 2010, berryhill filed a motion to correct error. on july 22, filed according to this article and: 9 for publication legal holidays, if a written application for detention is filed with the facility. [berryhill] is mentally ill, dangerous and in need of immediate restraint for the reduced to its essence, indiana code section 12-26-5-1(a) says that "[a]n individual facts and procedural history filed. in this case, the application for detention was based primarilyon the verybehavior that (a) a person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts i repeatedly said ,,i just want to go home."). discussion and decision (2) has a substantial impairment or an obvious deterioration of that individuals detention" form that reads in relevant part as follows: (a) an examination; or parkview did not substantive rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as theyare in appeals is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed 1. the plaintiff became agitated and apparently was suffering from head 13 underwent some medical tests. berryhill became loud and aggressive. berryhills physician 6 be immediately taken into custody to be examined to determine whether said 2011, the trial court issued an amended judgment that reads in pertinent part as follows: the gist of berryhills claim against parkview is false imprisonment, which has been informal setting. we also note that the parties in a small claims court bear the berryhill argues that the trial court erred in finding that "[t]here was very little eventually, the berryhills son persuaded berryhill to go to the hospital, and he drove for purposes of indiana code article 12-26, "mental illness" means "a psychiatric disorder that: 3 also at some point after berryhills outburst, dr. pollander signed a medical statement hastetter v. fetter props., llc, 873 n.e.2d 679, 682-83 (ind. ct. app. 2007) (some citations which are necessary and appropriate. i understand that the physicians caring for me are parties do not distinguish these facilities for purposes of either the detention statutes in general or berryhills (1) participates in proceedings for the detention or commitment of an detention in particular, neither do we. at 8:05 p.m., judge david avery issued a verbal order for berryhill to be taken to surgery for subdural hematomas. dr. pollander also documented berryhills anger issues and mris or scans or something." tr. at 9.1 berryhill. and berryhill swore out an affidavit to this effect.7 1 at approximately 5:45 p.m., berryhill "became very angry, aggressive, and loud," id. at 329, and dr. pollander was concerned that he might "hurt himself or others." tr. at 52. berryhill does not challenge the legality of the detention itself.11 8 2. after arriving at the hospital the plaintiff once again became violent and had to be subdued by hospital security. on that day the plaintiffs spouse and was put in 4pt restraints and given giodon [sic]. mr. berryhill is a considered detained for purposes of indiana code section 12-26-5-1 until after an application ambulance for berryhill "due to his head hurting from a prior stroke and brain surgery" and according to indiana code article 12-26), and therefore we conclude that parkview is or adjudged to have a mental illness; should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious statutory scheme. (1) physically abuse an individual. 13 instituted by the state institution. ) small claims bench trial was held in november 2010, at which berryhill did not appear for leave the hospital. tr. at 58. a licensed physician in the state of indiana and am of the opinion that at 4:44 p.m., emergency physician dr. gregg pollander entered berryhills treatment and leave." appellants reply br. at 7. this point. kay testified that berryhill "was going to leave" the hospital, tr. at 10, as did one 2011) (citation omitted). moreover, "[i]t can be just as important to recognize what a statute dated this 25 day of august, 2007. also, we direct berryhills counsels attention to indiana appellate rule 50(f), which says, "because the 5 trial courts judgment in favor of parkview.13 in his reply brief, berryhill asserts that dr. pollander is parkviews agent but cites no relevant (b) in need of immediate restraint. hospital. [berryhills] concerned with is the restraining of him and not letting him leave the hospital. he voluntarily our standard of review in small claims cases is well settled: berryhills outburst in the emergency room, kaysigned an application for detention pursuant ) crone, judge with his spouse and was eventually transferred to parkview hospital bya application for detention is filed with the facility." (emphasis added.) notably, the statute dr. pollander testified that he did not "know one way or the other" whether berryhill had asked to [y]oure not challenging that commitment proceedings [sic] as such, what youre concerned with and thorough evaluation. this [patient] is dangerous due to a head injury. detained for purposes of indiana code section 12-26-5-1, we conclude that the security section 12-26-2-6(a). there is no evidence that the guards acted with malice, bad faith, or absurdity in order that the strict letter of the statute may be adhered to. they 2 4. under i.c. 12-26-2-6 in order for the plaintiff to recover they [sic] restrained by the security guards.12 appellant-plaintiff, ) statute in such a manner as to prevent absurdity and to advance public alleged that he "was held against [his] will, kidnapped, abused, improper restraints and given room at parkview hospital ("parkview"), where he voluntarily checked himself in and given me about the patient. that berryhill was "calm" and "in a good enough state emotionally in judgment to be able to in its amended judgment, the trial court determined that parkview was entitled to immunity court of appeals of indiana page of each volume of the transcript "shall conform to form #app.r. 28-1" and that the transcripts table of hospital on his own before he was forciblysubdued. there was verylittle ) i therefore petition the court for an order that the above-named person (1) a statement of the applicants belief that the individual is: control, and berryhill grabbed kays arm and pushed her onto the bed. at approximately berryhills behavior. at approximately 5:13 p.m., berryhill underwent a brief clinical application for detention is filed. as such, without deciding precisely when berryhill was at trial, kay testified that berryhill suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses as a result of the after his wife filed the application for detention. we disagree with berryhill and affirm the parkview behavioral health and held for seventy-two hours for an examination. at 9:11 to the extent parkview suggests that the restraint was not unlawful because berryhill signed a and down and persuade him to enter the secured room voluntarily. id. at 65. berryhill demanded transcript is transmitted to the court on appeal pursuant to rule 12(b), parties should not reproduce any is particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are designed to dose of intravenous geodon," a relaxant. id. pursuant to dr. pollanders order, two harm because the individual: will rather look to the intention of the legislature, as gathered from the import individual; or 5 7 medical reasons. on november 22, 2010, the trial court issued a judgment in favor of at some point after berryhills outburst, kay signed an "application for emergency see tr. at 74 ("q: .... [d]o you have any personal knowledge that after the tests [berryhill] wanted led to berryhill being restrained by parkviews security guards. we cannot conclude that the ind. code 12-7-2-130. "dangerous" means "a condition in which an individual as a result of mental illness, thought that he was "nuts" and wanted to commit him to the "psycho ward." defendants ex. 11 from a court of general jurisdiction. this [patient] is a danger to others and need[s] to be admitted to pbh for a as a result of the persons actions. following reasons: mr. berryhill became violent with his wife earlier today. dr. pollander ordered that berryhill be taken to a secured room and administered a "small detention is filed. indeed, the statute does not specify when the written application must be ones liberty without consent." earles v. perkins, 788 n.e.2d 1260, 1265 (ind. ct. app. to trial rule 52(a), the clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review officers asked kay if she wanted to have berryhill arrested, and she declined. the 331. as dr. pollander expected, the tests did not reveal any medical explanation for er he became violent and was put in four-point restraints and given geodon. involved with my healthcare to perform that medical treatment and those medical procedures, (b) information given the physician; but he resisted and demanded to go home, so they escorted him to the secured room and that reads in relevant part as follows: contends that he was illegally restrained before he was detained pursuant to indiana code dr. pollander spoke with berryhill and spoke separately with berryhills wife and with berryhill that "[a] consent for voluntary treatment does not forfeit the patients right to end the treatment indiana code section 12-26-2-6 provides: is filed. similarly, berryhill contends that parkview is not entitled to immunity pursuant to application was completed, or parkview behavioral health, where berryhill was transported. because the given our resolution of this case, we need not address parkviews arguments regarding the applicability of indiana code section 12-26-5-3, which says, "an individual detained under this chapter may she stated that since his head injury in march she has seen an increase in david a. kruse mark w. baeverstad dr. pollanders notes indicate that berryhill c at 316. he said that he felt ok and denied feeling any pain or weakness. kay told the placed the "combative" berryhill in a "two man control hold," escorted him to the secured independently. room.2 "gravely disabled" means are true. berryhill became agitated and argued with his wife, kay. they fought over the tv remote detained at least one more day for observation. on august 27, 2007, dr. beale determined treatment of an individual alleged ... to have a mental illness" for purposes of indiana code well as the effect of such an interpretation. we presume that our legislature he grabbed her, hit her and was out of control. he became violent in the er from berryhills false imprisonment claim pursuant to indiana code section 12-26-2-6 p.m., a police officer transported berryhill to parkview behavioral health. on august 26, evidence submitted by either party regarding this attempt to leave the of the individual. (2) protect other persons and property." i affirm under penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations berryhills counsel conceded as much when questioning kay at trial. see tr. at 43 ("q: ... 12 afraid he would hurt her. he had become violent towards her earlier today. or days, it has accelerated even more. it is to the point that he injured his wifes arm slightly 2007, berryhill was examined bypsychiatrist dr. gladys beale, who recommended that he be 10 issues. ind. small claims rule 4(a). it is incumbent upon the partywho bears reasons: we direct the court reporters attention to indiana appellate rule 28(a), which states that the title courts are not bound to adopt a construction that would lead to manifest defendants ex. c at 331. 382 (emphasis added). affirmed. may be detained in a facility for not more than seventy-two (72) hours ... if a written pain on august 25, 2007. on that date he was involved in an altercation relevant indiana rules and statutes." ind. small claims rule 11(a). pursuant correct."). kruse & kruse, p.c. andrew l. palmison 11 human needs; or to be detained and examined at parkview behavioral health, from which he was released two seventy-two (72) hours under this chapter, excluding saturdays, sundays, and berryhill sued parkview, alleging that the security guards actions constituted false would have to show that the defendant acted with malice, bad faith or to a secured room and sedated. two parkview security guards tried to calm berryhill down, in august 2009, berryhill filed a notice of claim against parkview, in which he workers tried to persuade berryhill to go to the emergency room, but he declined. the police case summary portion of the transcript in the appendix." to leave and started to leave the hospital? a: yes. q: and at that point you were told to secure him? a: before the application for detention was filed, which did not occur until after he was appeal from the allen superior court nurse that she was "worried" and that she "needed to see that he had some kind of tests or anger and rage in her husband. she reports that today was the worse [sic]. underlying goals and policy of the statute. the honorable jerry l. ummel, magistrate the trial court to assess witness credibility. this deferential standard of review test to determine whether there was a medical cause for berryhills "anger outbursts." id. at trial courts judgment. offer any contrary evidence.8 approximately 3:55 p.m. berryhill told the triage nurse that he had come because his wife became agitated and fought with his wife. his family persuaded him to go to the emergency dated this 25th day of august, 2007. the individual may be mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled. emergency workers and police officers then left the berryhills home. of facts determined in a bench trial with due regard given to the opportunityof family member. removed. (a) substantially disturbs an individuals thinking, feeling, or behavior; and (b) impairs the individuals ability 8 7 the events leading to his emergency room visit.3 be examined and given emergency treatment necessary to do the following: (1) preserve the health and safety to go home and said that he would have to be "forced into the room." id. at 68. the guards once he was calmed down she encouraged him to come to [the] er. in [the] in the convenience. in so doing, we must be mindful of the purpose of the statute, as 10 the facts most favorable to the trial courts judgment are that on august 25, 2007, homestead fin. corp. v. southwood manor lp, 956 n.e.2d 183, 184-85 (ind. ct. app. is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent and to interpret the today. immediate restraint in parkview behavioral health... for the following 11:20 a.m., kay called 911. according to the 911 incident report, kay requested an negligence in this action. the court finds that the plaintiff failed to carry placed him in restraints. after berryhills outburst, his wife filed an application for berryhill guards "act[ed] according to" indiana code article 12-26, which governs the voluntary and the question then becomes whether berryhill was unlawfully restrained.9 raymond dale berryhill, who had suffered a stroke and other health problems, in other words, berryhill argues that a person cannot be we presume that parkview behavioral health is affiliated with parkview, but the nature of that intended its language be applied in a logical manner consistent with the guards) acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence, presumablywhile "act[ing] according to" reached the opposite conclusion. speedily dispense justice by applying substantive law between the parties in an however, we note that this deferential standard does not apply to the (2) a statement by at least one (1) physician that, based on: excessive force. fort wayne, indiana plaintiffs ex. 3 at 379 (emphases added). the italicized words are handwritten. he was restrained by the security guards. appellants app. at 23. we agree with berryhill on attorney for appellant: attorneys for appellee: defined as "the unlawful restraint upon ones freedom of movement or the deprivation of ind. code 12-7-2-96. cause no. 02d01-0908-sc-17061 same burdens of proof as they would in a regular civil action on the same the individual may not be detained in a state institution unless the detention is pannell v. penfold, 848 n.e.2d 1130, 1132 (ind. ct. app. 2006), trans. denied. security guards actions, but on appeal berryhill does not claim that the guards committed battery or used of the security guards,6 judgment only if the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court treatment authorization form and the security guards restrained him pursuant to dr. pollanders order, we agree the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is entitled to the recovery sought. 69. berryhill was given geodon and eventually calmed down, after which his restraints were medical and anger issues. (a) mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled;[10] rather, berryhill 1196, 1202 (ind. ct. app. 2010). the construction of a statute is a pure question of law. i, the undersigned, under the penalties for perjury, herebystate that i am assessment byocleva williams of parkview behavioral health,4 3 [s]mall claims court judgments are "subject to review as prescribed by clerkof the supreme court, days later. (b) an application under subsection (a) must contain both of the the record is silent regarding whether the application was filed with parkview, where the section 12-26-5-1. more specifically, berryhill argues that he could not have been detained patient, raymond berry [sic], was brought to the er because his wife was raymond dale berryhill, ) auburn, indiana rothberg logan & warsco llp 9 2003).5 presents a substantial risk that the individual will harm the individual or others. " ind. code 12-7-2-53. purposes of indiana code section 12-26-5-1. we disagree. 4 12 a condition in which an individual, as a result of mental illness, is in danger of coming to does not say as to recognize what it does say." town of dyer v. town of st. john, 919 n.e.2d danger to others in his current state. (2) deprive an individual of a personal or civil right except according does not say that an individual may not be detained until after a written application for authority for this assertion. the burden of proving any malice, bad faith or negligence and therefore, (b) the immunity provided by this section does not permit a person to i, the undersigned, firmly believe that the above-named person be discharged." tr. at 84-85. room, and placed him on a bed in restraints "for his safety and safety of staff." id. at 68, 66, entitled to immunity from berryhills false imprisonment claim. accordingly, we affirm the negligence (or physically abused berryhill or deprived him of a personal or civil right except (2) assists in the detention, care, and treatment of an individual alleged contents "shall be a separately bound volume." ind. appellate rule 28(a)(7) and -(8). ) do either of the following: emergency workers and police officers arrived at the berryhills home. the emergency person is mentally ill and in need of commitment for care and treatment. affiliation is unclear from the record before us. judgment, reasoning, or behavior that results in the individuals inability to function following: see plaintiffs ex. 2 ("i thought i checked myself in i could check my self [sic] out.... i walked out parkview security guards approached the "agitated" berryhill and attempted to calm him tax court as such, the evidence is undisputed that berryhill attempted to this statement is based on an examination of the patient/information [s]tatutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia and imprisonment. the trial court concluded that parkview was immune from liabilitybased on a treat" form, which reads in pertinent part, "i hereby authorize the healthcare providers the plaintiff cannot recover. appellee-defendant. ) kpmg, peat marwick, llp v. carmel fin. corp., 784 n.e.2d 1057, 1060 (ind. ct. app. may, j., and brown, j., concur. 4 independent healthcare providers and not employees of the facility." defendants ex. c at checked in and he wanted to leave. instead of letting him leave they restrained him, thats the gist of your feb 16 2012, 9:11 am kay berryhill, signed an application for emergency detention. leave the hospital but was restrained by parkviews security guards. indiana code article 12-26 and "assist[ing] in the detention, care, and treatment" of involuntary treatment of mentally ill individuals, and "assist[ed] in the detention, care, and 3. the plaintiff argues that the defendant [sic] attempted to leave the evidence submitted by either party" regarding his alleged attempt to leave the hospital before individuals who are mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled before an february 16, 2012 after id. at 23. berryhill now appeals. presented to the emergency department for evaluation of anger issues.... he has a lifelong 6 omitted). we consider evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, together (a) an individual may be detained in a facility for not more than court of appeals and complaint, is that correct? a: thats correct."). was concerned that he might be a danger to himself or others, so he ordered him to be taken with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. we will reverse a who documented berryhills 2 dr. pollander ordered a ct scan and a blood additional defendants, including dr. pollander, all of whom were dropped from the case. a


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise