This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 Unpublished Opinion DAVIES, Judge (Hon.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.