Plan To Be 100

A little drama is stewing in the elder law world.

I wrote about the Roush case when it came out. Click here to read that post appropriately titled “This Could Get Interesting.”

Since then, the matter has been taken up by the Michigan Supreme Court. And the MSC requested that the Elder Law Section of the State Bar file a brief setting forth what they believe the correct result should be.  That was done.

Awkward. Now some of the very same Section Council members who voted for the brief to be submitted (or at least chose not to vote against it as it was unanimously approved), are wondering if they made a mistake – as other advocates in the aging community are suggesting that the position taken in the Section’s brief interprets the controlling law in a way that is less than stridently protective of individual rights.

No Man’s Land. The issue  – and it’s an important one – comes about because Michigan’s patient advocate designation (“PAD”) law has long been recognized as unique (surprising even) in its express direction that a person can revoke their PAD even if they lack capacity to make their own medical decisions.  That is, even after two doctors have triggered the patient advocate’s authority by certifying that the patient lacks the ability to understand the implications of their own medical treatment decisions, that patient may nonetheless revoke the authority of the patient advocate.  The question in Roush is:  So what then?  What happens during the period after a person who has been deemed unable to make their own decisions revokes the PAD – and before a Court can appoint a guardian (or at least decide if one is needed)?  Is the person to be given all their natural rights to accept or reject medical care, as any competent person would have?  Or are their rights frozen until a Court decides who is in charge – themselves or someone else?  What’s a hospital (or in this case, nursing home) to do?

Many advocates would say the rights of that individual are restored in full. But the Elder Law Section’s position, as argued in the brief, is that those rights are not restored until a Court says so.

The Section’s brief was prepared by our very capable colleague Jim Steward and his colleague Angela Hentkowski (a very excellent lawyer in her own right). Click here to read the brief.

Oral arguments are scheduled for March.