In re Delevie
204 A.3d 505
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Mother (96) resided at Foxdale, received onsite medical care; she executed a valid Health Care Power of Attorney naming Raymond deLevie (Appellant, a physician) as Health Care Agent and Alvin deLevie (Petitioner) as alternate.
- Conflict arose after Mother’s 2014 fall regarding transfer method: Appellant insisted on a Beasy Board; Foxdale preferred a Hoyer hoist; Appellant recorded staff without permission and repeatedly pressured/berated staff and demanded records.
- Foxdale’s medical director informed Appellant he would no longer treat Mother due to Appellant’s interference; Foxdale offered neutral evaluation which Appellant refused.
- Petitioner filed to remove Appellant and sought a preliminary injunction (to preserve on‑site care). The court granted a temporary injunction immediately and later held hearings on removal (Aug. 31 and Oct. 23, 2017).
- The Orphans’ Court allowed Petitioner to amend his theory from 20 Pa.C.S. § 5461(e) to § 5454(d), revoked the portion of the POA appointing Appellant, disqualified Appellant from serving as health‑care representative, and appointed Petitioner. Appellant appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Raymond) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioner/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearings were limited to the preliminary injunction and Appellant denied due process | Raymond: hearings were for injunction only; he lacked notice to defend removal | Petitioner/TC: injunction was already in effect; hearings addressed removal; Appellant made no contemporaneous objection | Court: No due process violation; hearings properly considered petition to remove; Appellant waived objection |
| Whether court erred in allowing amendment from §5461 to §5454 and revoking POA | Raymond: court lacked authority under §5454(d) (relies on pre‑2016 Border decision); amendment prejudiced him | Petitioner/TC: amendment permitted; §5454(d) (amended 2016) allows court to revoke POA for cause; amendment not prejudicial | Court: Leave to amend proper; post‑2016 §5454(d) allows revocation; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether removal/disqualification lacked sufficient evidentiary support / abuse of discretion | Raymond: findings unsupported; removal not shown by clear evidence; alleged misapplication of federal nursing‑home regs and wiretap law | Petitioner/TC: Appellant’s conduct interfered with care (physician refusal to treat, refusal to cooperate), showing cause and best‑interest basis for removal | Court: Record supports that Appellant’s conduct jeopardized Mother’s on‑site treatment; removal was within court’s discretion |
| Whether preliminary injunction was improper and/or evidence should have been reopened or hearing curtailed unfairly | Raymond: injunction prerequisites not met; trial court should have reopened record to admit DHS report; hearing was curtailed and transcript incomplete | Petitioner/TC: injunction necessary to prevent immediate irreparable harm (loss of on‑site care); DHS report not material; hearings adequate | Court: Preliminary injunction appropriately granted (and later mooted by removal); trial court properly denied reopening; no reversible error in hearing management |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fiedler, 132 A.3d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for Orphans’ Court factual and legal determinations)
- Walter v. Stacy, 837 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2003) (preliminary injunctions may be issued without a hearing when immediate irreparable harm is likely)
- Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d 870 (Pa. Super. 2014) (pro se litigants must comply with appellate procedural rules, including word‑count certification)
- In re Estate of Border, 68 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2013) (pre‑2016 case on limits of court revocation of POA relied on by appellant)
- Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540 (Pa. Super. 2014) (liberal leave to amend pleadings; amendment should be allowed absent prejudice or legal error)
- In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973 (Pa. Super. 2013) (mootness doctrine when events eliminate the controversy)
- Hendricks v. Hendricks, 175 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2017) (six‑factor framework for preliminary injunction analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Safka, 141 A.3d 1239 (Pa. 2016) (standard and discretion for reopening the record)
- In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate waiver where arguments lack citation to supporting authority)