In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michelle R. Fogarty.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1910

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Michelle R. Fogarty.

Filed July 17, 2017
Affirmed; motion denied
Bjorkman, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-MH-PR-16-416

Richard J. Cohen, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant Michelle R. Fogarty)

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Anne E. Jolliffe, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Ramsey County)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges her civil commitment as a mentally ill person, arguing police
reports introduced at the commitment hearing should have been provided to her at the time
the commitment petition was filed. We affirm.

2
FACTS
On August 11, 2016, members of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department brought
appellant Michelle R. Fogarty to Regions Hospital. Fogarty had been arrested for stalking,
and mental-health personnel at the jail felt a risk assessment was needed because Fogarty
was exhibiting delusional beliefs. Fogarty presented at the hospital as “delusional and
paranoid with rambling, rapid and tangential speech” and was “marginally uncooperative,
agitated, angry and hostile.” Hospital personnel ultimately diagnosed Fogarty with
schizophrenia. On August 12, Region s submitted petition s seeking Fogarty’s civil
commitment as a mentally ill person and for authority to impose treatment with neuroleptic
medication to the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office . On August 15, respondent Ramsey
County filed the petition s with the district court. The district court appointed Fogarty’s
counsel the same day. Counsel received copies of the petitions, the examiner’ s statement
in support of the petitions, and the prepetition screening report, and was given full access
to Fogarty’s medical records.
The prepetition screening report reveals Fogarty has struggled with mental -health
issues for 30 years. She was civilly committed in 2000 and 2003, and was admitted to
Regions for a behavioral -health analysis on six other occasions. The screening report
indicates Fogarty was assigned to the Ramsey County Probation’s Intake Office following
a domestic-assault charge, and h ad several pending charges in St. Paul. And Fogarty’s
medical records reference her legal problems , listing the names and contact information
for the St. P aul City Attorney and an officer with the St. Paul Police Department.

3
Following a preliminary heari ng, the district court orde red Fo garty be held until the
commitment hearing.
During the August 30 commitment hearing , the district court admitted various
documents into evidence, including incident reports from the St. Paul Police Department .
Fogarty’s counsel objected on the grounds that he had not seen the police reports and that
they are irrelevant. Following a brief recess during which counsel reviewed the reports,
Fogarty’s counsel objected because the reports were hearsay, irrelevant, and unfairly
prejudicial. The district court overruled the objection. Joel Hrabe, Psy.D., L.P., the court-
appointed examiner, was the county’s only witness. Dr. Hrabe testified that he examined
Fogarty and reviewed her medical records and the police incident reports. He indicated
that her police contacts demonstrated that she was exhibiting “paranoid ideation and
delusional thought content.” Ultimately, Dr. Hrabe agreed with Regions personnel that
Fogarty suffers from schizophrenia and recommended tha t Fogarty be civilly committed
as a mentally ill person . The district court granted the petition at the conclusion of the
hearing, and subsequently issued a formal commitment order. Fogarty appeals.1
D E C I S I O N
In an appeal from a civil-commitment order, we review de novo whether there is
clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s determination that an

1 After Fogarty filed her brief , this court issued an order requiring her to file a one -page
supplement addressing compliance with Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 1(b) , given
the fact that the commitment order does not address the sole issue she raises on appeal —
whether copies of police reports must be filed with a commitment petition. Fogarty ’s
supplemental filing lists the same legal issue but provides additional citations to the record
and apposite authority.

4
individual meets the standards for commitment. In re Thulin, 660 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Minn.
App. 2003). We will no t reverse a district court’s findings unl ess they are clearly
erroneous. In re McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Minn. 1995).
Fogarty’s sole argument on appeal is that she is entitled to a new commitment
hearing because a county seeking to commit a person should be required to provide copies
of relevant police reports at the time a commitment petition is filed. We generally consider
only issues that “were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the
matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).
But we have recognized a narrow exception to this rule that applies when the issue “is
plainly decisive of the entire controversy on its merits, and where, as in [a case] involving
undisputed facts, there is no p ossible advantage or disadvantage to either party in not
having had a prior ruling by the [district] court on the question.” Watson v. United Servs.
Auto. Ass’n , 566 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted) . Fogarty
acknowledges that the issue she raises on appeal “was not asked in so many words during
the course of the [commitment hearing] ,” but she asserts that “the record is complete for
the purposes of this appeal.” We are not persuaded.
First, the record confirms that Fogarty did not argue in the district court that police
reports related to a person whose commitment is sought must be made available to the
person at the time the commitment petition is filed. At the commitment hearing, Fogarty’s
counsel initially objected because he had not seen the incident reports and believed they
were irrelevant. After reviewing the reports , he renewed his objection based solely on
relevance, prejudice, and hearsay. He did not renew his challenge to the late disclosure .

5
And counsel did not argue that he should have been provided with the reports at the time
the petition was filed. The district court therefore did not consider the issue.
Second, we are not persuaded that the issue Fogarty presents falls within the narrow
exception to Thiele. The issue does not turn on undisputed facts. At oral argument in this
court, the county expressed concern about the feasibility of such a requirement and
indicated it would have presented opposing evidence if given the opportunity to do so.
Fogarty’s failure to present the issue to the district court d isadvantaged the county and
prevents us from conducting a meaningful review of the issue. “Because we are not a fact-
finding court, issues brought to us on review must have been identified, argu ed fully, and
entered into the record at the district court level.” Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC , 844
N.W.2d 528, 532 (Minn. App. 2014). Because we decline to consider Fogarty’s sole
appellate argument, the order for commitment is affirmed.2
Affirmed; motion denied.

2 The county moved this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Fogarty did not
raise the challenged legal issue in the district court . Because we affirm th e commitment
order, we deny the motion as moot.