# Commitment of GPH v. Giles

> Indiana Court of Appeals · September 24, 1991 · 578 N.E.2d 729

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714867

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the Commitment of GPH, Appellant-Respondent, v. David GILES, M.D., Appellee-Petitioner
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 24, 1991
- **Citations:** 578 N.E.2d 729; 1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 1569; 1991 WL 191635
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rucker
- **Judges:** Sharpnack, Hoffman, Rucker
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714867

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding notice was adequate because although Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-MH-1592 | February 6, 2026 Page 6 of 11 portions of the physician’s statement were illegible, committed person was notified of the temporary commitment proceeding
- noting that in involuntary commitment proceeding, court properly allowed physician to have access to patient's medical records under Indiana Code Section 16-4-5-3.1, now, Indiana Code Section 16-39-2-1
- clarifying waiver of a respondent's codified due process right to counsel at a commitment hearing when the statute recognized the right but was silent on personal waiver

## Opinion text

RUCKER, Judge,
concurring in result with separate opinion.
I concur in result with the majority opinion. The trial court determined GPH was both gravely disabled and dangerous thereby justifying GPH's involuntary commitment. I agree the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish GPH is gravely disabled. However, I am unpersuaded there is clear and convincing evidence demonstrating GPH presents a "substantial risk" that he will harm himself or others. Ind. Code § 16-14-9.1 -1(c).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714867. Public record. Not legal advice.