Michigan Lawyer Who Sued the State Files Federal Appeal in Ohio

The lawyer who boldly sued the state of Michigan for elder abuse has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bradley Geller’s Aug. 9 Notice of Appeal came on the heels of U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson’s May 16 decision to dismiss the false claims case based on the recommendation of Magistrate David Grand.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations against the defendants are not specific and particularized; rather, they are sweeping in nature, claiming in only the broadest sense that professional guardians, who are financially compensated for their role, are wrongfully institutionalizing individuals who are capable of managing their own affairs; that the probate courts are rubber-stamping these guardianships rather than meaningfully ensuring that individuals’ rights are protected; and that the counties and various state oversight entities are failing to intervene,” stated Grand in his April 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

However, Geller claims in his Appeal’s Issues Presented, that the lower district court erred in determining that fraud was not alleged with specificity, that the lower district court abused its discretion in offering a mere conclusory statement without evidence that even a single allegation was totally implausible and that the lower district court overstepped its boundaries when it expanded the Rooker Feldman doctrine beyond what is set forth in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman.

“The dignity and fairness of the Court were undermined with repeated incivilities, such as untruthfulness, insults, denigration, disingenuous case citations, and mischaracterization of the content of the complaint,” Geller said.

Michigan Supreme Court Spokesperson John Nevin declined to comment except to say, “the case was appropriately dismissed by the district court.”

In the original complaint, Geller named the State of Michigan, the Michigan Probate Courts, Professional Guardians and 8 Public Administrators who are collectively guardian and/or conservator for some 2,000 older adults within the state.

“It is hoped the Michigan Supreme Court will now order probate courts to relieve all eight defendants of all their guardianships and conservatorship cases,” said Geller.

Allegations include:

• Thomas Frasier placed a husband in a separate facility from his wife of forty years; Mr. Fraser does not allow the husband to visit his spouse.
• Frasier along with Jennifer Carney, Jon Munger, Alan May, and John Yun placed individuals in currently unlicensed board and care homes in which no one had a duty to ensure proper medical care and there is no regulation of fire safety.
• Jon Munger not only warehouses a resident in a facility in which the resident developed scabies mites but Munger also botched a Medicaid application, putting a resident in jeopardy of involuntary transfer for failing to pay the nursing home bill.

The eight administrators named in Geller’s lawsuit include George Heitmanis, Alan A. May, John B. Munger, Walter Sakowski, John Yun, Heidi C. Aull, Jennifer Carney, and Thomas B. Fraser.

On Aug. 23, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office relieved Robert Kirk, Jon Yun, Jennifer Carney, and Thomas Fraser of their public administrator responsibilities.

“After re-evaluating our needs, we decided to relieve these public administrators of their appointments,” Nessel said in a statement online.

The public administrators moved the lower district court for sanctions against Geller on April 2, averring that his federal lawsuit was filed for the “improper purpose of harassing and painting the public administrators in a negative light.”

However, Grand recommended the administrator’s motion for sanctions be denied.

“Geller’s argument about individuals under guardianship having certain inherent challenges to independently pursuing their rights is far from frivolous,” wrote Magistrate Grand in his Aug. 7 Report and Recommendation to Deny Defendant Public Administrator’s Motion for Sanctions. “Although the Court found that Geller’s arguments were not meritorious under the law, one could reasonably find that, as to this issue, he presented a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”