AARON MANOR, INC. v. JANET A. IRVING.

2008 Ct. Sup. 15260
No. CV 06-5000429Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown
September 24, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE WHETHER DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE PERSON FOR LIABILITY TO NURSING HOME
CLARANCE J. JONES, JUDGE.

Aaron Manor, Incorporated is a nursing facility located at 3 South Wig Hill Road in Chester, Connecticut that provides medical care, including long-term care, room and board, and prescription medication for its residents. Aaron Manor brings this lawsuit to recover from Janet Irving expenses incurred in providing medical care and services to her late father, William P. Ammon, in its facility from about October 29, 2002 through on or about July 24, 2003. Upon his admission to the facility defendant Janet A. Irving signed a Resident’s Admission Agreement with Aaron Manor, Incorporated, as the “Responsible Party” for her father. Section II, paragraph (10) of the Resident Admission Agreement states

[i]f the responsible party has control or access to the patient/resident’s income and/or assets, the responsible party agrees that these funds shall be used for the patient/resident’s welfare, including but not limited to making prompt payment for care and services rendered to the patient/resident in accordance with the terms of this agreement.

Aaron Manor brings this lawsuit in two counts, to wit: Breach of Contract; and Fraud. Aaron Manor maintains that although defendant Janet Irving had access to her late father’s income and assets she breached the agreement by failing to use those resources to pay for his care. The plaintiff claims that as of April 7, 2008, the bill is $27,340.00. Janet Irving denies having access to her father’s financial resources. Aaron Manor also asserts that the defendant acted fraudulently by representing that she had the authority to act on behalf of her father and that she had the ability to fulfill the duties under the admissions agreement; namely, to access her father’s resources to defray the expenses of his residential medical care.

From a review of the evidence, including an assessment of the CT Page 15261 credibility of the witnesses, the court finds the facts and makes the rulings hereinafter articulated.

Findings and Rulings
Defendant Aaron Manor had provided excellent residential care for defendant Janet Irving’s mother. On October 29, 2002 as her father, William Ammon, was being transported from a hospital to the defendant’s residential care facility Janet Irving was informed that her signing the Patient/Resident Admissions Agreement (admissions agreement), and certain other documents, was a condition precedent to his admission. She then signed the following documents, among others, above a line below which was printed either “Patient Responsible Party Signature, or adjacent to which was printed Responsible Party: a) admissions agreement — Exhibit 2; b) Medoptions — Exhibit 5; c) Influenza vaccine consent form — Exhibit 7; d) Organ and tissue donation form — Exhibit 9; e) authorization for release of information — Exhibit 10; f) assignment of medicare benefits — Exhibit 12; g) rehabilitation consent form — Exhibit 13; and h) therapeutic recreational services form — Exhibit 16. Janet Irving informed the plaintiff that she would be the contact person for attending to her father’s personal care, and that her brother, William P. Ammon would be responsible for his financial arrangements.

The Admitting Record form (Exhibit B) lists as the “Person Responsible for Account” “William P. Ammon Son POA,” together with his address. The son, William P. Ammon, held the Power of Attorney for his father, and managed his father’s financial affairs, including paying his bills out of his father’s bank account. The plaintiff mailed monthly bills for the services provided to William Ammon, the father, directly to William P. Ammon, the son.

The court finds that defendant Janet Irving did not have a Power of Attorney for her father, and did not access to her late father’s checking account nor to any other of his financial resources. The court finds that she did not act fraudulently toward the plaintiff.

As to Counterclaims, as Amended
The defendant asserts a counterclaim for each of the following: Breach of Contract; Unfair Trade Practices; and Fraud. The Court finds that the defendant has not proved any of her counterclaims.

Judgment
Judgment shall enter for the defendant on the Complaint, as amended, CT Page 15262 in this action.

CT Page 15263