Rishell v. Jane Phillips Episcopal Memorial Medical Center
1993 WL 525076, 12 F.3d 171 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal representative of a permanently incompetent person may change the incompetent's domicile for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction if the change is made in good faith and is in the best interests of the incompetent person, thereby rebutting the presumption that an incompetent person lacks the capacity to change domicile.
Facts:
- Ms. Lacey, a domiciliary of Oklahoma, attempted suicide while hospitalized in the defendant institution, also in Oklahoma.
- As a result of the attempt, Ms. Lacey suffered severe brain injuries, leaving her in a permanent vegetative state and mentally incapacitated.
- Following her injury, Ms. Lacey was moved to a specialized long-term care facility in Louisiana.
- Her condition is considered irreversible, and she is unable to make any decisions for herself.
- A Louisiana court appointed Ms. Lacey's brother-in-law as her curator (legal representative) and her husband as undercurator.
- The curator and undercurator intend for Louisiana to be Ms. Lacey's permanent home.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative (Plaintiff) of Ms. Lacey filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant hospital in the U.S. District Court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that because Ms. Lacey was domiciled in Oklahoma, there was no diversity of citizenship.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Ms. Lacey, being mentally incompetent, could not form the intent to change her domicile from Oklahoma to Louisiana.
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration based on a Louisiana court order declaring Ms. Lacey a domiciliary of Louisiana, which the district court denied.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court-appointed legal representative have the authority to change the domicile of a permanently mentally incompetent person, thereby establishing diversity of citizenship for a federal lawsuit, when the incompetent person herself cannot form the requisite intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
Yes. A legal representative can change the domicile of a permanently incompetent ward if doing so is in the ward's best interest. While an incompetent person is presumed to lack the capacity to change their own domicile, this presumption is rebuttable. The purpose of the presumption is to protect the incompetent person's right to determine their domicile if they regain capacity. However, when an incompetent person will never regain reason, preserving this right is a 'fiction.' In such circumstances, the law must allow a legally authorized representative to determine domicile based on the best interests of the incompetent person, rather than leaving them in a 'never-ending limbo' where the protective presumption becomes more harmful than helpful.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the traditional common law rule that an incompetent person cannot change their domicile due to a lack of intent. It shifts the legal analysis from the incompetent's subjective (and non-existent) intent to an objective 'best interests' standard, to be applied by their legal representative. This ruling provides a practical pathway for establishing diversity jurisdiction in cases involving permanently incapacitated individuals, preventing them from being legally 'trapped' in their pre-injury domicile for litigation purposes. It aligns federal diversity principles with modern state law approaches that grant guardians greater authority to act on behalf of their wards.
