This opinion will be unpublished and
                  may not be cited except as provided by
               Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

                          State of Minnesota
                            in Court of Appeals
                              C0-96-272

     In the Matter of: Gregory A. Williams.

Filed May 14, 1996
Affirmed
Davies, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. PX9560511

James S. Dahlquist, 301 Fourth Ave. S. #270, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for
Appellant Williams)


Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Peter J. Fransway, Assistant
County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for
Respondent North Memorial Medical Center)

Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge,
and Stone, Judge.(*)
        [Footnote] (*)Retired judge of the district court,
        serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals
        by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI,
        § 10.
                                     
                        Unpublished Opinion

DAVIES, Judge (Hon. Cara Lee Neville, District Court Trial Judge)

Gregory A. Williams appeals the trial court's conclusion that he is
mentally ill and in need of commitment, arguing that the trial court erred
in finding that he poses a substantial likelihood of causing physical harm
to himself or others. We affirm.
                                     
                               Facts

Williams, suffering an episode of acute psychosis, was taken to North
Memorial Medical Center (NMMC). Dr. Dennis Philander, a psychiatrist,
diagnosed Williams as having ``schizophrenia, paranoid type, in acute
exacerbation.'' Dr. Philander noted that Williams engaged in threatening
behavior and was not taking prescribed medication.

A petition was filed seeking commitment of Williams as a mentally ill
person. Three people testified at the commitment hearing. Jennifer Gish, a
social worker at NMMC, testified that: (1) Williams' mental condition was
deteriorating because he was not taking his medication, causing him to
become hostile, threatening, and agitated; (2) Williams denies he is
mentally ill; (3) Williams has a history of letting others take advantage
of him; and (4) Williams' mother is afraid that if he lives with her, he
will bring home people he has met while drinking or unmedicated.

Psychologist Dr. Paul Boerger, the court-appointed examiner, testified
that: (1) Williams ``is at high risk to be harmed or taken advantage of by
others ***''; and (2) Williams' mother may be harmed if he brings home
dangerous people he has met on the street. Dr. Boerger's report notes that
Williams admits giving away hundreds of dollars and that Williams claims
his medication is poisoning his system.

Williams testified that: (1) he has never hit anyone; (2) he would get his
own apartment or live with friends; (3) he prepares his own food and buys
clothing; and (4) he has a psychiatrist if he needs medical care.

The district court concurred with a referee recommendation that Williams be
committed to the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center and the trial court
affirmed. Williams appeals.
                                     
                              Decision

A trial court's findings will not be set aside unless they are clearly
erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. In reviewing a commitment, this court is
limited to examining whether the trial court complied with the commitment
act's requirements. In re Schaefer, 498 N.W.2d 298, 300 (Minn. App.
1993).

To commit a person civilly, the trial court must find by clear and
convincing evidence that the person is ``mentally ill'' as defined by the
commitment act. Minn. Stat. 𨵕B.09, subd. 1 (1994); In re
McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Minn. 1995). A ``mentally ill person''
is one

        
        who has an organic disorder of the brain or a
        substantial psychiatric disorder of thought, mood,
        perception, orientation, or memory which grossly
        impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize
        reality, or to reason or understand, which
        
        (a) is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed
        behavior or faulty perceptions; and

(b) poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as
demonstrated by:
        
        (i) a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing,
        shelter, or medical care as a result of the
        impairment, or

(ii) a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others.

Minn. Stat. 𨵕B.02, subd. 13 (1994). The statute does not require
that a person actually suffer physical harm as a result of failing to
obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care; it only requires
that a failure to obtain such necessities results in a substantial
likelihood of harm. Schaefer, 498 N.W.2d at 300. Mere speculation as
to whether the person, in the future, may fail to obtain necessary items or
may attempt or threaten to harm self or others is not sufficient to justify
commitment. McGaughey, 536 N.W.2d at 623.

Williams contends there is not clear and convincing evidence that his
condition poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to himself or
others. We disagree. Dr. Philander's notes and Gish's testimony indicate
that Williams engages in ``threatening'' behavior. According to Gish, other
patients are afraid of Williams. The testimony also indicates that
Williams' mother fears that he may bring dangerous strangers into her home.

There is also clear evidence that Williams is likely to harm himself.
Williams admits that he does not regularly take his medication. Gish and
Dr. Boerger both testified that Williams allows others to take advantage of
him. According to Gish, Williams has been evicted from several places and
has nowhere to live. She also stated that the last time Williams was
discharged he lived with a fellow former patient who evicted Williams and
took his money and clothing.

Given Williams' failure to take his medication, his threatening behavior,
and his vulnerability, there is a substantial likelihood of physical harm
to himself or others. See In re Allen, 451 N.W.2d 68, 71
(Minn. App. 1990) (upholding finding of substantial likelihood of harm
where patient failed to take medication and engaged in threatening behavior
while hospitalized). The evidence is clear and convincing and the trial
court did not err in its finding.