11 April 2013

KingCast says Judge Alvin W. Thompson ignored In re Bachand, 306 Conn. 37 (2012) in denying Betty J. King Motion to Intervene in Shafer v. Bremby 2012-CV-00039 Title XIX Medicaid Lawsuit.

The law couldn't be any clearer, the fact that the POA was initially filed in Ohio does not divest Connecticut Courts of Jurisdiction so I am overnighting the Motion for Reconsideration and for Clarification on the Rule 11 Sanctions that the Court has not ruled on, and an Interlocutory Appeal is coming next. From the Motion:

          Bachand is proverbially hot off the presses, and as a matter of law this Honorable Court must follow the law of Connecticut and cannot afford any less protection in the Federal scheme than the State affords under the State scheme. And the case is 100% directly on point, involving a Power of Attorney from a different state, and a mother with Alzheimers so an Interlocutory Appeal will follow if this Court does not sua sponte issue a reversal by Monday, 15 April 2013.

[**173]  The plaintiff argues, however, that, because Mary was moved to West Hartford for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment for her Alzheimer's condition, her physical presence there was akin to temporary hospitalization, which trial courts have found insufficient to establish residence. See, e.g., Trambarulo v. Whitaker, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-06-4020211-S, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2575 (September 28, 2007); Robinson v. Probate Appeal, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-03-0827331-S, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2504 (August 22, 2005) [***19] . We disagree. It is undisputed that the facility at which Mary was placed provides long-term care for patients with an incurable condition who require care for the remainder of their lives, rather than acute, transitory care, which patients may seek for temporary, curable conditions, with the intention of returning to their homes once cured.
Therefore, Mary was not moved to the West Hartford long-term care facility for a temporary or transitory purpose but, rather, to receive ongoing care in a residential setting for an indefinite period of time. In that regard, the facility in West Hartford was the place where Mary actually lived, which was definite as to purpose, but indefinite as to time.3 See Schutte v.  [*49]  Douglass, supra, 90 Conn. 538 (Beach, J., concurring). Accordingly, we conclude that Mary resided in West Hartford at the time of the defendant's petition and, therefore, the Probate Court there had jurisdiction to order the accounting from the plaintiff pursuant to § 45a-175 (b).4

(From an email to Defendants)
.........I don't know guys but you have not alleged that the POA is valid only in Ohio and you cannot make that argument with a straight face because Connecticut has already recognized it, as has the Federal government.

Sec. 1-51. Claims and litigation. In a statutory short form power of attorney, the language conferring general authority with respect to claims and litigation shall be construed to mean that the principal authorizes the agent:(1) To assert and prosecute before any court, administrative board, department, commissioner or other tribunal any cause of action, claim, counterclaim, offset or defense, which the principal has, or claims to have, against any individual, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, government, or other person or instrumentality, including, but not limited to, power to sue for the recovery of land or of any other thing of value, for the recovery of damages sustained by the principal in any manner, for the elimination or modification of tax liability, for an injunction, for specific performance, or for any other relief; (2) to bring an action of interpleader or other action to determine adverse claims; to intervene or interplead in any action or proceeding, and to act in any litigation as amicus curiae; (3) in 

No comments: