Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
: SUPERIOR COURT
MARJORIE PARTCH
Plaintiff
: J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
: AT BRIDGEPORT
v.
:
:
: DECEMBER 5, 2014
REVISED COMPLAINT
Background Facts
1.
At all times mentioned herein the Defendant Wilton Meadows Healthcare Center
Corporation (hereinafter known as Wilton Meadows) was a Connecticut
Corporation with a principal place of business in Wilton, Connecticut.
2.
Dorothy S. Partch, a Conserved Person since July 27, 2010, was born
November 29, 1929.
3.
4.
In 2004, the Plaintiff Marjorie Partch moved her residence from Vermont to the
Family Homestead in Connecticut to care for her mother, Dorothy Partch,
following a minor stroke.
5.
The Plaintiff Marjorie Partch continued to reside with and cared for her mother
Dorothy Partch in their shared home at 20 Devils Garden Road in Norwalk,
Connecticut, from 2004 until March of 2010, constituting a total of six years of
home care.
6.
This period of home care qualified Plaintiff for full ownership of the Family
Homestead under the Medicaid Caregivers Exception after only two years:
Federal Medicaid Rules Concerning the Caregivers Exception to the
Property Transfer Look-Back Period:
Transfer of the home by the individual or his or her spouse to:
A son or daughter who lived in the home for at least two years prior
to the date of institutionalization and provided care that permitted
the individual to remain at home to avoid institutionalization:
42 U.S.C.A. 1396p(c)(2)(A)(iv); U.P.M. 3029 A.1.e.
9.
10.
10.
On said date Dorothy Partch also designated Plaintiff Marjorie Partch as her
Health Care Representative and Attorney-in-Fact for Health Care Decisions.
11.
In both said Power of Attorney and Health Care Agency documents, she PreDesignated Marjorie Partch to be her Conservator, should one ever be required.
12.
Said Durable Power of Attorney conferred not only Principal Dorothy Partchs
Agency upon Plaintiff, but also by means of its explicit authorization to transfer
ownership of ALL assets and Property to Plaintiff herself, during the Principals
lifetime, as of February 3, 2005 conferred upon Plaintiff a Direct Personal
INTEREST in the $1M Estate, specifically emphasizing the Family Homestead
14,
This Property was also Plaintiffs primary home and residence for 40 years; and
sole residence for six years while providing full-time live-in care for her mother.
15.
There were additional financial assets in which the Plaintiff also held an Interest
including but not limited to other Real Property and two substantial Individual
Retirement Accounts, listed in the Principals name, and naming Plaintiff as both
Power of Attorney With an Interest and Beneficiary all of which were liquidated
in a precipitous 18-month Probate spend-down of more than $465,000 in
qualifying the Principal for Medicaid which amount could have been properly
spent in providing adequate home care for the Principal; or in ANY WAY that the
Plaintiff deemed fit.
16.
On July 8, 2010, Defendant filed a false Application with the Court of Probate for
the Involuntary Conservatorship of Dorothy S. Partch stating that the
Respondent was not known to have executed a Durable Power of Attorney
(Coupled With an Interest); had not executed a Designation of Health Care
The above-mentioned Background Facts are hereby incorporated into this First
Count.
2.
3.
On April 25, Wilton Meadows staff, while conducting commerce and / or trade as
a state-licensed health care facility, required Plaintiff to sign an Admissions
Agreement authorizing the facilitys treatment of Dorothy Partch as a stroke
Patient. This Agreement required a signature by not only an Agent of the
recipient of the Defendants health care, but also an additional signature by a
Responsible Party.
4.
5.
Wilton Meadows staff had knowledge that Plaintiff had cared for Dorothy Partch
for many years in their shared home in Norwalk.
6.
As a health care facility, Wilton Meadows knew, or should have known, Federal
Medicaid Rules and Regulations, and how they affect rehabilitation Patients and
potential long-term care residents, and their families and assets; and the
Interests of the Plaintiff.
7.
facility due to the Responsible Party's failure to fulfill the promises stipulated in
the Admissions Agreement. This Agreement included mutual promises.
8.
This Agreement bound both the Principal (Dorothy S. Partch) AND Plaintiff (as
the Responsible Party) to a business relationship with the Defendant. And
vice versa, the Defendant entered into a business relationship with both the
Patient (through her Agent, With an Interest), and separately and additionally,
with the Responsible Party as a distinct individual (with a Medicaid Exemption).
9.
Based upon this twofold relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, Wilton
Meadows had a Duty of Care to Plaintiff, for example, to not misrepresent any
billing for their health care services; or to attach the Responsible Partys
Property in order to secure payment for its services to the Patient / Principal.
10.
In addition, Wilton Meadows had a Duty to Plaintiff to refrain from filing a false
Application for Conservatorship (which is a Class D Felony), because it was
foreseeable to a person in Wilton Meadows position that filing a false
Application for Conservatorship, which denied Plaintiffs designations (and
Coupled Interests), would interfere with Plaintiffs Identity, Authority and
Interests in the $1M Estate (as conferred by the Durable Power of Attorney),
directly and / or indirectly causing harm and injury to Plaintiffs Rights and
Interests in the following ways:
a. Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to her close relationship with her mother;
b. Plaintiffs Rights as conferred by Plaintiffs Agency Coupled With an Interest;
c. Plaintiffs Property Rights and Interests under the Federal Medicaid Law;
Because the Plaintiff had personally and legally entrusted her mother into the
Defendants medical care (rather than that of another institution); Plaintiff
therefore entrusted and involved her own Personal Interests in her mutually
binding Admissions Agreement with the Defendant. Therefore, Defendant owed
Plaintiff a Duty of Care beyond that of any mere family members of its Patient,
relatives who had not signed the Principal in acting as her Agent With an
Interest; and / or who had not qualified as an Exempted Caregiver under
Medicaid Law for more than two years; and / or who had not bound themselves
to any Admissions Agreement as the Responsible Party.
12.
On July 8, 2010, Wilton Meadows breached this Duty of Care to Plaintiff when it
surreptitiously filed its false Application for the Principals Involuntary
Conservatorship with the Court of Probate, misrepresenting that the Principal
was not known to have executed a Power of Attorney With an Interest (in favor
of Plaintiff), or designated a Health Care Representative. This Breach of Duty
caused foreseeable cascading catastrophic events, directly and / or indirectly
causing immediate and far-reaching, ongoing harm to Plaintiff.
13.
15.
16.
This Interference with Plaintiffs Interest the assets of the Estate was apart from
the confiscation of the Principals State Pension (as a retired schoolteacher),
which ultimately paid the Defendants $100,000+ bill for the unwanted privatepay institutional care forced upon the Patient by the Defendant against the
instructions of her Health Care Representative, which were ignored by both the
Defendant and its proposed Conservator.
17.
In June 2010, Wilton Meadows, upon learning that Dorothy Partch's Medicare
Part A benefits would be expiring in July of 2010, recommended that the Health
Care Representative and Responsible Party take Dorothy Partch home and
additionally recommended the home care agency Nursing and Home Care in
Wilton, Connecticut, for assistance, in its Discharge Plan under preparation in
June 2010.
20.
At this time, Plaintiff requested that her mother remain at the facility for
approximately another 30 days, in order to allow Plaintiff time to prepare their
shared home for her mothers return in a wheel chair.
21.
In turn, Defendants licensed social worker stated that the Patient could remain
at Wilton Meadows as long as Plaintiff could pay for private care for one months
time. Wilton Meadows social worker further represented that Wilton Meadows
required that Plaintiff demonstrate the ability to pay, in order for the Patient to
stay for the month; and that as part of this determination process, Wilton
Meadows required information on the entire familys finances. This was a false
statement made as a statement of fact, and Wilton Meadows knew this
statement was false when Wilton Meadows made it, because Wilton Meadows
knew that it did not need information on the entire familys finances in order to
demonstrate the ability to pay for one month, and Wilton Meadows knew that the
information it was intending to solicit from Plaintiff was not being solicited for its
stated purpose, but was being solicited for the purpose of assessing the status
of Plaintiffs $1M Interest in the Estate, as conferred by the Power of Attorney;
and to determine whether Plaintiffs Interest was severable.
22.
10
23.
As Defendant intended, Plaintiff did in fact rely upon Defendants misrepresentation, and divulged the requested information regarding the familys overall
finances, including information on the entire familys assets (including Real
Property) and income (including benefits).
24.
25.
26.
11
12
27.
13
27.
28.
29.
For example, Plaintiffs joint checking account with her mother (to which they
both made deposits), containing more than $16,000, was seized without a
hearing during the first 30 days of her mothers Temporary Conservatorship.
This constituted not only an Ascertainable Loss, but also precluded Plaintiff from
retaining legal representation for her mother or herself for many many months,
thereby causing incalculable and irreparable harm as a result of Defendants
14
deceptive and unscrupulous actions, given the fact that there are no Public
Defenders in the Civil Court system.
29.
15
30.
The actions of the Defendant, including but not limited to its actions in making
the misrepresentations set forth herein, were extreme and outrageous.
27.
28.
For the first 90 days of the Patients stay at Wilton Meadows, Plaintiff barely left
her side, so their closeness was evident and known. To dismiss Plaintiffs own
anxiety and pain as second-hand suffering on behalf of her mothers would miss
the point that Plaintiff would never have experienced her own terrible anguish
herself but for the Malicious, Intentionally Cruel Acts of Defendant, which were
intended to disrupt this visibly close relationship, in order to sever the relationship
between mother and daughter; Patient and Caregiver / Health Care
Representative; and Principal and Agent; as well as Plaintiffs $1M Interest in the
Estate, which she had not yet transferred to herself. This severance was the
purpose, not an unforeseeable by-product, of Defendants deceptive and
unscrupulous actions.
17
29.
Being at home together was the quality of life and relationship that the two
women had planned for many years to have at the end of Plaintiffs mothers life:
To share that unique and precious time as much as possible, reading Emily
Dickinson together. For example, for Plaintiff to be able to continue to give her
mother twice-daily massages with lotion for the extremely delicate and dry skin
on her legs, was important to both women. It was painful and horrifying for
Plaintiff to see her mothers skin covered in neglected and festering blisters and
ulcers, some of which were eventually diagnosed as carcinomas (due to
Plaintiffs Complaints to the Department of Public Health), when Plaintiff would
have prevented this discomfort, as she always had before. Wilton Meadows
initial response to Plaintiffs concerns about these sores was to attempt to curtail
her visits altogether, with which the Ombudsman again intervened. This neglect
deprived both women of what should have been. Plaintiff was deprived of the
precious experience of providing loving daily care for her mother. Plaintiffs pain
was certainly compounded by her mothers pain, and her empathy and
compassion for her mothers deprival was certainly part of the emotional
equation. That is what LOVE IS. But to deprive a devoted Caregiver of the
ability to protect and nurture ones loved one, when one has vowed to do so, is
extreme cruelty toward the Caregiver. Plaintiff has been deprived of her own
priceless and irreplaceable experience of keeping her sacred vow to her mother,
who was also her lifelong best friend and spiritual mentor. Depriving this devoted
hands-on Caregiver Plaintiff of her irreplaceable and precious time with her
extremely close mother and the special experiences of continuing to care for her
18
in their shared home as she had done for six years, constituted severe
emotional cruelty toward both women, including Plaintiff.
30.
31.
32.
Plaintiff has suffered the loss of not only the material value of the $1M in assets
in question, but irreplaceable time with her mother in the comfort of their own
beloved home; as well as the security, stability, peace of mind, and quality of life
that the Principal intended her devoted Caregiver, daughter, Agent and
Beneficiary to maintain for the rest of her own life.
19
33.
These qualities of life have been replaced by constant chaos, anxiety, worry,
instability, crisis, repeated loss of employment, poverty, stress, illness, repeated
moves of (substandard) residence, and the necessity to maintain constant and
stressful litigations in multiple Courts, as well as additional advocacy to redress
these wrongs and their resulting damages to Plaintiff, as well as her disabled
(and voiceless) mother and sister.
34.
Plaintiffs eviction from the Family Homestead was in itself traumatizing; and the
loss of her permanent home of 40 years, and the constant threat of its sale,
compounded by the need for constant stressful litigation to protect it, have all
been additional sources of severe emotional distress and ongoing stress.
21
: SUPERIOR COURT
MARJORIE PARTCH
Plaintiff
: J.D. OF FAIRFIELD
: AT BRIDGEPORT
v.
:
:
: DECEMBER 5, 2014
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Revised Complaint was mailed, first class
mail, postage prepaid on this 5th day of December, 2014, to the following attorney of
record:
Angelo Maragos, Esq., # 411134
Goldman, Gruder & Woods
200 Connecticut Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06854
(203) 899-8900 (T)
(203) 899-8915 (F)
PLAINTIFF
MARJORIE PARTCH
BY: ______________________________
Marjorie Partch
Self-Represented
P.O. Box 776
Westport, CT 06881
203.912.3528
map@marjoriepartch.com
22