People ex rel. Yeager

Leo Yeager suffered from multiple medical issues and had no known relatives. Yeager was declared legally incapacitated, and the county’s Department of Human Services (county) (plaintiff) was appointed as his legal guardian. The guardianship order gave the county authority to make ordinary medical decisions for Yeager on its own. However, court approval was required before the county could make any decisions about extraordinary medical actions, such as agreeing to a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. Yeager’s health continued to decline, and the county sought court approval of a DNR order for Yeager. The county presented expert testimony from Yeager’s doctor that resuscitation efforts, e.g., cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), would be potentially painful and harmful to Yeager in his current medical condition and unlikely to extend his life in a meaningful way. In the doctor’s opinion, providing resuscitation efforts would be futile, cruel, and unethical. An attorney (defendant) was appointed for Yeager, and the attorney opposed the authorization request for the DNR order. Yeager’s attorney pointed out that the law presumed that a person consented to resuscitation procedures unless the person had personally indicated a lack of consent. No evidence had been presented about Yeager’s personal views on resuscitation or a DNR order. The attorney argued that the court could not override the legal presumption of consent and allow a guardian to make this decision for Yeager without evidence of Yeager’s personal views. After reviewing the doctor’s expert testimony and other evidence of Yeager’s condition, the trial court authorized the county, as Yeager’s guardian, to agree to a DNR order on Yeager’s behalf. The county then agreed to the DNR order, and Yeager’s attorney appealed. Yeager died while the appeal was pending.