In re Mollie Orshansky

804 A.2d 1077 (2002)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Mollie Orshansky

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
804 A.2d 1077 (2002)

Facts

Eighty-seven-year-old Mollie Orshansky (defendant) lived in Washington, DC. Her closest family members, including niece Jane Pollack, lived in New York City. In November 2001, Adult Protection Services (APS) began visiting Orshansky, finding her malnourished with poor hygiene and unsanitary living conditions. In December 2001, Orshansky was hospitalized at George Washington University Hospital (hospital) (plaintiff). The hospital petitioned for the appointment of a guardian for Orshansky’s person and a conservator for her property. A doctor’s report stated that Orshansky had progressive dementia. The probate court scheduled a hearing for February 2002. In the meantime, Pollack arrived at the hospital with a healthcare proxy previously executed by Orshansky, naming Pollack as Orshansky’s agent for healthcare decisions. Pollack asked that Orshansky be released into her care, but the hospital refused. Pollack eventually removed Orshansky without permission and took her to New York, homing Orshansky in an apartment Orshansky owned in the same building as Orshansky’s sister. The hospital moved for an emergency hearing to appoint a temporary guardian. The court concluded, without explanation, that the healthcare proxy was void and Orshansky’s removal to New York was improper. It appointed attorney Harry Jordan as Orshansky’s temporary guardian and conservator and Tanja Castro as her attorney. At February’s permanent-guardianship hearing, Castro, who had never spoken with Orshansky, waived Orshansky’s right to be present and conceded that Orshansky was incapacitated. Jordan testified that upon visiting Orshansky in New York, he found her well-groomed and calm. Additionally, Pollack had arranged a full-time, live-in aide and was taking Orshansky to doctor’s appointments. Jordan believed, however, that Orshansky would be better in a nursing home because the aide lacked medical certification. He also testified that Orshansky’s substantial assets were in a trust account with Orshansky as the sole beneficiary and Orshansky and her sister as cotrustees. Pollack testified that Orshansky had purchased the New York apartment intending to move there when necessary and that family now visited Orshansky regularly. Pollack also explained that Orshansky’s sister was using the trust account to pay Orshansky’s bills as Orshansky had intended when making the sister the cotrustee. The judge held that Orshansky was incapacitated, was unable to care for herself, and had property that might be improperly dissipated. The judge appointed Jordan as Orshansky’s permanent guardian and conservator and ordered him to return her to DC, arrange for 24-hour care, and serve as cotrustee in Orshansky’s place. Pollack appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Glickman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership