In the case of a New York man who was wrongfully placed in a nursing home for 10 months against his will, the 2nd Circuit affirmed dismissal of the man's claims against the probate judge, the nursing home and state officials, but asked the Connecticut Supreme Court whether quasi-judicial immunity extends to court-appointed conservators and attorneys.In 2005, octogenarian Daniel Gross had a conservatorship imposed on him and was kept in a nursing home until a Superior Court judge in Connecticut ordered him released, citing "a terrible miscarriage of justice."
Gross sued probate Judge Thomas P. Brunnock, court-appointed attorney Jonathan Newman, conservator Kathleen Donovan, Grove Manor Nursing Home, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and state ombudsman Maggie Ewald.
Gross said the defendants wrongfully kept him at Grove Manor, where he lived with a violent roommate who attacked him, and ignored his complaints about the mistreatment.
The defendants all asserted absolute or quasi-immunity, and U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant dismissed the complaint. She dismissed the claims against state officials for procedural reasons, but cited immunity for the rest.
"We affirm the dismissal of claims against the state officials, the tort claims against the nursing home, and the finding of absolute judicial immunity as to the judge," the New York-based appeals court ruled.
However, it found Connecticut law on quasi-immunity "unclear" and certified the following questions to the state Supreme Court:
"Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to conservators appointed by the Connecticut Probate Courts?
"Under Connecticut law, does absolute quasi-judicial immunity extend to attorneys appointed to represent respondents in conservatorship proceedings or to attorneys appointed to represent conservatees?" and;
"What is the role of conservators, court-appointed attorneys for conservatees, and nursing homes in the Connecticut probate court system, in light of the six factors for determining quasi-judicial immunity outlined in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201-02 (1985)?"
Full Article and Source:
Court Seeks Clarification in Conservatorship Case
8 comments:
I am pleased to see the Daniel Gross story back in the news, lest anyone ever forget.
Daniel was luckier than most in that at least he got his freedom.
But the financial devestation was just money lost; the courts refused to hold the real culprits accountable.
Even when it is found that there is wrongdoing, we don't see the money going back to the owner.
Daniel Gross should have won his case, but the brethern protect each other.
This is a prime example of the cover-up the corruption under color of law our laws are written by lawyers who are lobbied by lawyers who want immunities for judges and lawyers and guardians and a long list of self-serving reasons.
Immunities were meant for errors made IN GOOD FAITH.
Immunities are a big mistake that needs to be corrected now. We are not blind, we see what is going on and we will fight for right and this is all wrong.
Daniel Gross deserves to have every cent returned to him by those who profited from a fraudulent guardianship and those who engaged in these activities belong in prison.
Judges should never be granted immunity. Neither should guardians or lawyers.
People must be held accountable for wrongdoing.
The Dan Gross case was the beginning of the end of the abusive probate courts in Ct.
The Gross case is a perfect example of how a guardianship can destroy one's life and everything he/she has worked for.
immunities have to be eliminated because these people know they can get away with everything and anything the Daniel Gross case is solid proof their activities are getting bolder and bolder in the name of greed this is out of control immunities were meant to protect people in positions of trust who might have made a mistake in GOOD FAITH these people are pushing it futher and further making stealing legal for them and illegal for us how dumb do they thing we are?
Post a Comment