Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples

Argues undisclosed expert testimony inadmissible and unconstitutional (2011)

Recommends Court grant motion because: dismissal does not deprive defendants of defenses; there is minimal prejudice if deceased plaintiffs' claims are dismissed

Recommends Court deny defendants' motions because, if disposal of deceased's claims are disposed, representatives or successors are precluded from further actions

Argues Court must reverse claims' dismissal and remand because: court incorrectly dismissed claims on the basis of res judicata; court erred dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant's agent while allowing plaintiff's claims to proceed against defendant based on agent's conduct; court disregarded allegations against defendant's elder services

Argues Court must affirm probate's court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's civil claims based on res judicata doctrine

Argues Court must strike amici curiae brief, reverse claims' dismissal and remand because: the amici curiae restate defendants' conservator liability arguments; guardians are not immune from personal liability; public policy supports ward litigating claims for relief

Argues Court must reverse cessation of elderly waiver benefits because: choice of qualified providers is fundamental in Medicaid program; commissioner erroneously allows contracting function to interfere with choice; commissioner has authority to contract with chosen qualified provider

Alleges negligence and breach of care caused: permanent injuries; loss of earning capacity; inability to engage in activities; ongoing medical and hospital expenses. Requests over $50,000 in damages, costs and jury trial (2010)

Argues Court must reverse order and remand because: statute permits claim against estate; collateral estoppel is inapplicable; joint and several liability permits recovery of valid medical assistance claim from estate assets

Argues Court must reverse decision or, in the alternative, lift prohibition on case materials because: claimant did not leave employment without good cause; claimant should be authorized for review; workplace violence should be sufficient qualification for unemployment benefits; employer failed to provide accurate hospice records

Recommends Court enter judgment in plaintiffs' favor because: plaintiffs had a right to reinstatement; foreclosure on plaintiffs' property disregarded guidelines; financial incentives motivated defendants to seek fee reimbursement at foreclosure sale; defendants' took advantage of financially vulnerable plaintiffs

Requests Court overrule motion because: sanctions are warranted; defendants are not entitled to jury trial; request for judgment disagrees with evidence at trial; punitive damages award is fair; defendants' lien on plaintiffs' property is invalid; compensatory damages are supported with competent and substantial evidence; offer of proof consideration is ignorable

Argues Court must affirm judgment because relevant evidence demonstrates appellant's intent, absence of mistake and common plan to financially exploit the elderly using victim's debit card to make unauthorized purchases

Argues Court must reverse judgment and remand because evidence of uncharged bad acts not legally relevant to case violates appellant's rights to due process, fair trial and trial only for offense of which defendant stands accused

Argues Court must affirm judgment because: substantial evidence showed decedent was without sound mind when 2010 amendment to trust was executed; substantial evidence showed decedent was unduly influenced when 2009 and 2010 amendements to trust were executed; appellant failed to properly preserve issue for appeal; appellant represented offspring's interests at trial

Argues Court must affirm order because: appellant failed to state a claim; no connection between investigation and trial court error was demonstrated; trail court's impartiality was not affected by facts alleged

Argues Court must affirm decision because: appellant's brief fails to comply with rules regarding form or substance; appellant's allegations fail to state a claim

Requests: Count I - Intentional Failure to Supervise Clergy; Count II - Fraud and Conspiracy to Commit Fraud; Count III - Invasion of Privacy; Count IV - Defamation; Count V - Loss of Consortium

Argues Court must reverse order and remand because respondent failed to show facts demonstrating excusable neglect to set aside default

Argues Court must affirm decision because: respondent failed to preserve any issue for review; respondent failed to file a brief regarding appeal; decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record

Argues Court must reverse and remand because: constitutional question had not been decided; there was no basis for differentiating foreign object victims from other medical malpractice victims

Argues Court must reverse judgment and order new trial because trial court failed to give a required jury instruction

Argues Court must affirm judgment because: ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not reviewable on direct appeal; prosecutor's closing argument neither directly nor indirectly commented on defendant's failure to testify

Argues Court must reverse judgment and remand because: defendant did not have legal duty beyond what was performed; there was no evidence defendant secluded elderly adult to prevent others rendering aid; instruction did not require jury find failure to perform an unspecified duty

Argues Court must affirm judgment because: defendant assumed duty to care for vulnerable adult; defendant created unsanitary conditions; defendant knew there was a duty to summon aid; defendant failed to preserve objections made on appeal; other than faulty jury instruction, defendant waived all claims