Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-04 IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ELEANOR U. COOLIDGE : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : NO. 21-03-936 PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AUTO~. ~,S~. 7" ~.A~ FACTUAL BACKGROUND c~' ,~ -. ::~, Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, died on March 23, 2004. Shells surviv~:t by three (3) adult children, namely Phillip Coolidge, Thomas E. Coolidge and Julia Elizabeth~oolidge-Stolz. On December 20, 2002, Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, executed' a P~er of Attorney (POA) in which she appointed Thomas E. Coolidge, Respondent herein, as her attorney in fact. On November 12, 2003, Julia Elizabeth Coolidge-Stolz, Petitioner herein, filed a Petition for Appointment of Emergency Guardian in which she alleged that Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, lacked the mental capacity to knowingly and intelligently grant Respondent Power of Attorney and appoint him as her agent. Following a brief hearing the cou~ continued the matter and kept the record open for medical testimony. Eleanor U. Coolidge died on March 23, 2004, prior to the introduction of medical testimony. On March 24, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Preliminary Injunction in which she sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the cremation of the body of Ele~or U. Coolidge until such time as a brain autopsy could be conducted. The reasons set fo~h by Petitioner were that Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, as of March 23, 2004, lacked the mental capacity required to grant Respondent a POA over her affairs, that her mental and emotional faculties were so impaired that her own wishes were overborne by pressure applied by Respondent so that she did not execute the POA willingly, and that since acquiring the POA Respondent had made changes to Eleanor U. Coolidge's previously expressed testamentary intent and made inter vivos gi~s contrary to Eleanor U. Coolidge's intent. In short, Petitioner has alleged that Respondent has utilized the POA for his own benefit contrary to the desires and intent of Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased. Specifically, Petitioner has alleged that prior to December 20, 2002, Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, refused to grant POA to Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge despite his demands on her to do so. That since acquiring POA Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge has made inter vivos gifts on behalf of V, deceased, that were contrary to her previously expressed intentions; has failed to account for several valuable antique furnishings that were not included the public sale of Eleanor U. Coolidge's personalty; has advised Petitioner the "he" made certain changes with regard to the ultimate disposition of the estate of Eleanor U. Coolidge and told Petitioner she would not be able to prevent these changes; has refused to explain these "changes" to Petitioner; and has taken advantage of Eleanor U. Coolidge's mental infirmities so as to make her frightened of Petitioner and to alienate Petitioner from her mother. Since the death of Eleanor U. Coolidge, Petitioner has filed a caveat with the Clerk of the Orphan's Court so as to prevent the probate of Eleanor U. Coolidge's will without a hearing on the issues of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Petitioner seeks to have the court order a brain autopsy on the body of Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased, since relevant and material evidence of Eleanor U. Coolidge's mental state and mental capacity as of December 20, 2002 can be obtained thereby. ISSUES 1. DOES THIS COURT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER AN AUTOPSY? (Suggested Answer - Yes) 2. IS THERE A LIKELIHOOD THAT AN AUTOPSY OF THE BRAIN TISSUE OF ELEANOR U. COOLIDGE WOULD REVEAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS BOTH RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO ISSUES IN THIS CASE? (Suggested Answer- Yes) DISCUSSION This court has the inherent power to order an autopsy of the body of a deceased person. Kopechne Petition, 47 D&C 2d 579 (1969). In Kopechne, a District Attorney from the State of Massachusetts petitioned for a court order in the Luzeme County Court of Common Pleas for the disinterment of the body of Mary Jo Kopechne to enable an autopsy to be performed on the body. The parents of the decedent filed a Motion to Dismiss the District Attorney's Petition claiming the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The court stated that the court, even in civil cases, could order the disinterment of the body of a deceased for evidential purposes. The court, Id. at 584, went on the quote from State v. Wood, 127 Me. 197, 142 Atl. 728, 729, "It is not only within the power of the court to take such action as shall tend to bring before it all that may assist in the search for truth but it is its duty to do so." The court went on the say that the "wisdom and necessity" of granting such a petition was within the discretion of the judge hearing the petition. Guidelines for the exercise of that discretion are arguably set forth in Wawrykow, et al v. Simonich, Administrator of the Estate of David John Simonich, Jr., 438 Pa. Super. 340, 652 A.2d 843 (1994). In Wawrykow, David Simonich, Jr. died in a car accident. His estate filed suit against Penn Dot and a local tavern. Danielle Wawrykow claimed that the deceased was the father of her son, but the estate refused to recognize her son the child of the deceased. Three (3) years after the deceased was buried, the mother, on behalf of the son, sought to have the decedent's boy exhumed so that blood samples could be extracted for DNA testing. The trial court denied the petition, but the Superior Court remanded the case with guidelines for the trial court to follow. This court would be warranted in applying those guidelines in the instant case. In establishing these guidelines the Superior Court quoted from several cases from other jurisdictions with the pertinent quote being as follows: "The exhumation or autopsy of a corpse, when useful to ascertain facts in litigation, should of course be performed. Reverence for the memory of those who have departed does not require us to abdicate the high duty of doing justice to the living... The exhumation of a corpse, often a material assistance in insurance and inheritance cases, is demandable on this principle, subject of course to the trial court's discretion as to necessity and propriety." Wawrykow, 438 Pa. Super. 340, 346, 652 A.2d 843,846 (1994). The court went on to develop what can be characterized as a two-prong analysis for the trial court to undertake. First, has the proponent presented "reasonable cause" to believe that the exhumation (in this case "autopsy") would be revealing on the underlying issue. Secondly, whether proponent's proffered evidence, when read in conjunction with the evidence sought (the autopsy), the value in aiding the proponent's case in not so conjectural and remote as to render it speculative and uncertain. Id, at 347 and 846. Applying this two-prong approach to the instant case it must first be determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the autopsy would reveal relevant evidence as to Eleanor U. Coolidge's mental capacity and/or mental infirmities at the time she executed the POA and any testamentary documents at issue. This determination is solely dependent upon the testimony of the expert witnesses, i.e. Bruce H. Price, M.D. and Barry E. Kosofsky, M.D., Ph.D. Dr Price, a neurologist will testify that he has reviewed Dr. Jurgenson's letter of April 30, 2003, the letter of Respondent Thomase E. Coolidge dated October 7, 2003 and a non-contrasted brain CT scan of Eleanor U. Coolidge dated February 13, 2003. Dr. Jurgenson's letter of April 30, 2003 reveals that four (4) months past execution of the POA Eleanor U. Coolidge was demented and suffered from degenerative brain disease for at least one (1) year prior to his examination. He states that "she in addition has had serious deterioration in cognitive and intellectual function.", and her degenerative brain disease had resulted in gradual deterioration in her mental function. Based upon the limited records available to Dr. Price at that time he suspected that Eleanor U. Coolidge had significant cognitive impairments prior to December 2002, which may have impaired her competence to make important life decisions. The autopsy would provide Dr. Price with additional evidence of abnormalities in the brain which would enable him to state with reasonable medical certainty the mental capacity of Eleanor U. Coolidge to make important decisions such as the granting of a Power of Attorney in December 2002, and the testamentary capacity of Eleanor U. Coolidge in the event that her Will has been rewritten within the past three (3) years. Of course, such a determination would necessarily include all of her inpatient records for her three (3) hospitalizations and outpatient psychiatric records from Dr. Hagarty. Clearly, the autopsy of the brain would provide relevant evidence in this matter. The second prong is whether the testimony of Petitioner and two 92) lay witnesses when read in conjunction with the evidence sought by way of an autopsy would aid Petitioner's cause as opposed to whether the evidence sought is so conjectural and remote as to render it speculative and uncertain. The evidence of Petitioner and her witnesses establish that prior to December 20, 2002 Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge had a limited and emotionally distant relationship with Eleanor U. Coolidge, deceased. Prior to December 20, 2002, the deceased had made statements that Respondent had no time for her and she had to make an appointment just to see him. She made statements that she believed Respondent was after her money, but that he cared little about her. On at least one occasion she refused to give Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge a POA despite his demands that she do so. Decedent, on several occasions expressed a desire to reside at a home in Carlisle where she had lived for so many years and which would enable her friends to visit with her. However, Respondent placed her in a nursing home in Newville which effectively prevented these friends from regularly visiting the decedent. Petitioner will testify that, although geographically distant from her mother, she maintained regular telephone contact with her mother, usually two (2) times per week. She will concur with other witness testimony that decedent's relationship with respondent was strained and almost non-existent. She will testify to statements made by Respondent that he had altered the testamentary and inter vivos intentions of his mother. She will also testify as to how he used the POA to effectively alienate her from her mother during the last nine (9) months of her life. There is also the evidence of the Last Will and Testament of Eleanor U. Coolidge which was drafted and executed by the deceased during the time period which Petitioner claims her mother lacked the mental capacity to alter her testamentary intentions, or was so mentally inform as to be subjected to undue influence by Respondent. A review of this testimonial and documentary evidence, when read in conjunction with Petitioner's request for an autopsy and the reasons therefore clearly establish a reasonable basis for the granting of Petitioner's request for an autopsy. Respectfully submitted, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire ID# 41301 101 S. Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 796-2100 Respectfully submitted, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire ID# 41301 101 S. Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 796-2100