In re Rose S.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
293 A.D.2d 619 (2002)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
On June 22, 1999, Rose S. signed a healthcare directive before two disinterested witnesses naming Martin G.S. (defendant) as her healthcare proxy. On June 23, 1999, Rose was officially diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia. Records from Rose’s hospitalization from June 19 through June 24 indicated that she was confused and disoriented the entire time. Because Rose was disorientated and confused on June 22 when she executed the healthcare proxy, the hospital refused to honor it. Martin G.S. petitioned to enforce the healthcare proxy. Ellen J.S. and Stephanie S.W. (plaintiffs), Rose’s personal-needs guardians, challenged, arguing that Rose was not competent to execute the healthcare proxy on June 22. Rose’s doctor, Dr. Hollier, testified that Rose was not competent to sign the healthcare proxy on June 22. There was no evidence presented that either witness to the execution of the healthcare proxy on June 22 attempted to ascertain whether Rose was competent. Martin testified that he explained the healthcare proxy to Rose and that Rose was competent when she executed it. However, Martin failed to provide evidence that he investigated or established Rose’s competency prior to executing the healthcare proxy. Martin also admitted that he had Rose execute the healthcare proxy because the hospital told him that Rose was incompetent. The trial court held that the healthcare proxy was valid because Ellen and Stephanie failed to meet their burden to prove that Rose was incompetent when she executed the healthcare proxy. Ellen and Stephanie appealed, arguing that Martin should bear the burden of proving Rose’s alleged competency.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
