IN' `I':tIE 8'01?:t2:C{MG3 c:0'G

In re„ ComP7.a.9.nt•, agu:iixa.nk.

LUANN MITCT3ELL, EBQ.

375 Balmoral Drive

Cleveland, Ohio 441.43

P.O. Box 08531

Cleveland, Ohio 44108

RESPOND'N.'RP.I.'

CLEV.ELP.'ND BA.'R. .PiS 6OCT!#7"1'.ON

1301 E. 9th Street.•-2xa.d Leve:l..

Cleveland, Ohio 49:1.14:-1.253

REL.pa.'T.'OAZ.,.

MO1'TON :I*OYL :fl.S;COiA7',^`>:A::l)'L=;)d.

LUANBA' MI'I'CIiEL]:,

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box. 08531.

Clerrel.rando Ohio

(216) 486-0024

12EuPO1ubI;'A3'.C'

44108

kiaa::S:C:C.!!. 1^SfC:^^,O Nf

At.t:.c>.c,taeyu at: Law

(rre :Y :M. xe^ tar :^ B.'harp

:fl.5 01. A.uc:9.:lid. Aa•enuc.:^.

Cleveland, Ota:io 4413.5

0:0' }3V.a"ika,.Y.r 0:6?' YY.E:f.A'1°OIt.„CJi,T i>7ti'71atlX%D 1i2lS1 A:3>^'iOC7L.Ri7.'IOAT

M10

OF COURT^iE^^ COURT OF OHIOSUP

' o:Cr 0:8'a(3

C:4,..^:8 ^i(^. 0G-..007

:^YO., 200'71-:^.581S'O:F1k9::ti.'(".f":141D Y):^;C:i^kdCti:Rkt. 1.2 d 2007

1313(::A:lll:r;.l;3 :tA. d?E1::d'. :d, 3, 2008

9.":B:C1:914' C:l:u+ 4)k.dJJ:S^S$.^. :C)Y.l.'.7."^:'.17 APRIL 23, 2008

IIiN' "I"nTS S'CT.'^k8EWX C°O'OY2.1.'p.' OY`?' (:Fx:!<:O

In re: Complaint a.ga:i,:nst )

)LUAIaW N1I°EC.'nUll:4L> ESQ. ) C t5B:« NO. 06...007

)I2ES PCYdd.f7T'ttiP:C a

) AU,. 2 0 0 "1 -:B. 50 a.Ht1x1M:M:'ep.'?M) 1U1=sC:S;N11PR :12d 2007

Ci,E'iPELMtl'A FlWkR. AS;§OC'.I:?t..k"7CO:m I :13Mi;:u;TJMra APAd.:k:L 23„ 2008

ItF;L'l1.:T'O.R Fl

MOTION .FOR 1C.HOOttifAS:I.:uxR44'.7°,r,O.YOi CD:sr' o:00kU:o. k)A4:10J AP:Ca.:Y:k; = 2008

Respond.e:rtt, LTTANN MI'I'C'HP:[T, respecri.:f .u:l.l.y move;> th.:i.s Court

.recon.sider i. ts Op:.i.nri.on and. O:rde:r d.ated. Atxr_i.I. 23, 20013. A brief

memorandum in sup;po:rt :i.o a.tL.a.ca.i.cd...

f2espec-.:f.`u.:l.::l.y su.:bm:i..tted,,

1;[]A:N.N:I'sSQ..

POST C)1?F:CCX BOX 08531

011:I:0 441-04(2:1.6) 486-0029:

R.I7S]'ONDJ?:N7'

Y

MPN^C)RAN12:(]M L N 5T7P hOltI'

$12ILF_ STA7=RME.N':f' Q'-- I'.II,E^.___F'?a^

Respondent, C^uann Mi.Ce:h.cl.a., as:k:s t:Fi.c Cou_rt, to :recons:i.der' its

sa.ncti.ons i.n. its Op:i.:n.:i_an a..nd. O:r.de:r dated Ap:r.':i.J. 23, 2008, s.i.n.ce

7. a MoLion. for Rel:i.ef from JudcImena a.:; p:resenta_Y pending, which

goes to the substance o:E th.e underJy:i:n.q matter bc4.ore th.i.s cou:r't.

This Re7.a.t:or's case i s based on a.1:)ef_uu.].t J'a.dgment r.en.d.ered.i.n

L. Mitchel.l Guardi anf o r13c:rt ha_Wa, ki t nqlcln v,•-. We< 1-erp,^ erve

ArQa-Ac,^enc-v_.or.i-Aqa..:nca_,. :i.:n. tho Cou.:rt: of Common. :I':I.eas, P:roba.te

D:ivi.s:i.on, Cuya:h.oga. Cou.nty, 01;.4:i.o, Ca.se No. 2002 ADV 59296 (FXII.

A) . A hearing on t:he: matter was :h.eld. ox.i Ap:r:il 23, 2008, the same

clay as this cour•t's opini.on. ( NX1J: B)

The sanct:i_or.is at: is„uc rEl.a.Te c-x.cil.u.e iv'c.::L:y Lo a.:i.tiga.t:i_or.. :b:rough.t

by Respond.en.t M:itdh.el.'l., as Guar-d.:i.ax.a. for i3e;r:th.a Washington,

against Wester.•n. R.esc.:r.'vc: A:rea Agen.c:y :ixi t_h.c^ Cuyaka.oga. ('ou.ntY

Probate Coux't in 2002. ':['k.x:i.,3 :i.s the . I.:i.t:i.ga.t::i.or.i ta.iat i s th.e

subject of the cu.:r'rer.tt Mot::i.an. fo:r Rc-::I.:i.e,:f` :f':rom Judqment.

-,_Cert^.F:i.ed g.r.lcv'ance comm:rtaoe;; ar.id. the Board of Comma.ss:LOnera on

Grievarzees and D:i.sc::i;pl:izxe :recau.;La:r:l..y s,t:a.y Kxroeeedinqs which. are in

civ.il. litiga.t:i.on, wb.i.o.h. has, a d:i_![fc.:ee:ri.i: stand.ard of pr.•oo:f' and

where a. disciplinary p:rocecdi.rx3 ma:y b:r:i.nc1 i.mp:roper p:ressa.r.e upon

the participants ir.c a. c:i.v:i.a. :I.i.t:i.qa.t:i.o'r..i o:r c:r:i.m:i.r.ta.7. case. Ot=Uce

of DisC1p]inarY__Cq-un'el v',_K.,Iaa:;., aioa:rd. Case No. 98-99; QLfice of.

z

Diaciplinary CUUre.l_v S I..nel la„ T3oa:rd. Casc^ Ni^. 0046. This

Court has discretionary aaxthor:i.ty to also d.e7..ay t:he

implementation and exec.u.t:i.on o1: i.t::; O:rdc:rs whc:zz the circuntstances

are approp.r.•.iate. Thus, t:kze:re :i.s a.nrple, p:recedcUt t.}za.t t hiis matter

should be s'tayed. pe:n.d.:i.ng tazc compl.etJion a.:rzd oui.c:ome of the civil

li..tigatiorz.

R J;i?_ TPENfLN'a' E-' '.PTT}sC'.ASP

O:n Ma..r.•ck.t. 28, 2000 and. du:o.e: 2:1., 200, Oh:i.o ^l'ob & J?ami].y

ser•vice;; issued two deci si.ons r'elat:i.:rzq to re:i.nibu:rsement for•

var:i.ous types of exix.nse;; for Ms. :Berth.a. Wcasaz:i.:n.qto:n, 7'h:is court,

in its decis:ion. dated Ap:r:i1. 23, 2008, e:r:ro:n.eotzs9:y 1a.bel.s the

ordered expenses as "Medi.ca.:id. :r.e:i.nik>u:c:;e:me rzt" ( see Per• Cu:e•.i_am

Opin;ion, Par'a.. 2) . :I;r.t Vact, 'lJhc O:rdc^:r.• :rea.d th.;t:L

"T.[-IIa P.PI'}CG:CLF\NL >fO:AlJ 13:14 J2.I :I:MJ3UJ3.SC,1) ROJ:1 7:111s' CARE SBI;

PAID FOR. DURING TT-Ja:i PJ+;'R.7:0J) COM:I?:I:,]1+sNC:14 ]:S J2.J-;nD:1:R.I?IY' .

Contrary to the assert:i.on. of t:b.e R.el..ra.to:r, t h.e:re is absolutely NO

language in the O:rd.e:r :i.:n.d..i.ca.t::i_n.q t^hat Mrs. Wash:i_n.qt.on cou.ld. only

submit t.o be re.i.mbu,:rsed, i'o:r a. "MI!LI)CC:.,A]:D" acx.epted ex:pc:nse. While

that WOULD be the si:and.a.rd that NJestern. J.i.ese'rve Area. Agency on

Ag.ing would. n.eec9. :N.o:r.- them to caet; 4aS<^:4.:rr, mone:y, that was NOT' the

standa.r•d. lo:r M:rs. Wa.sa.i.irzgLorz, :ir.t t::k.i.:i-;; :i.r.zstanc:e:.. As a ittatt_er o:E

1:act, M:rs. Wa.sh.:i.ngton was PR:Ji^CI ,Ul")Ji'J) from 'ta.a:i rzg the same providers

she h.ad while :in. the ll.ela.to:r' ea Med.:ica.:i.c9. s:pon.;o:rec9. progr•a.me 'rhe

.4

contract of those prav:i.d.ers read that :i.f for any rea.son. Mrs.

Washington or any Mec3.:i.ca.:i.d pa.:r.(::i.c:i.paz..i: was no ].o:nqe:r .i.n the

Passport 10-A program, the:n. :f'.or a. pe:r:i.oc9 of one year, tha.t

provider agreed N'OT to p.rov:i.c3.e se:rv:i.ce,> 1::o its former :reci.pi.enC,

in this case, Mrs. Wash.irtqton, This is the equ.:ivalent of a

standard "r.io-campet:e" c1.a.u.sc fo'u.n.d in ma.ny cont:r.'a.ct:.s where there

are s•er.vices-fo.r-hire. This entire t i.mu, :C:r.oac 2000 u.:n.t:i.l 2008,

Western R.ese:rve A'rea. Agency o'n. Aq:i.ng, t:h:rou.gh. t:ki.e govc-::rnment

sponso'red. :PASSPO:R.'P 10-A P:rogra.m, ha.., a.tt:nnrKrf:ed, a..l.be:i_t

successfully, L-o l.i.mi.'t its own. 1.:i.a:biJ.:i.t,y to Mrs. Washington.

13owever, that :i.,a cont:ra.:r•y to both decisions wh.:i.ch were favorable

to M'rs. Washington. Succi.n.ct:l.y ,;l.aa:c>d, Wes;to7:rn Reserve Area.

Agency on. Aging wa.s tw:i.ce orci.ca:red to "re:i.aibu:rse for the care she

paid for during Lhis pe:r9.oci". ']'herca wan n.ot'h:i.rig in tta.ai: d.eci.s.i.on

that sta.ted re:i-nibu.rsed Pci:r.' only the "M)!.I):I:(."Al:l:) coverec9. reimburoed

care" ! Thruugti.out this c nt.:i.rc rrGa.i:t.e::r, West e rn 13.cscrve. Area.

Agency on Aging sought to l:i.m:i.t: its a:x:posu:re and liability by

only wanting to i:a.].:I.y wl:.c:i.c.tr expenses they couJ.d get reimbursed

for, which had to be "MLDiC.AIa) apf):rcxvec9".But :i.n wrongfully

terminat.i.ng Mrs. Wasb.:i:ngton. a.f'te::r sh.o L:i.mel.y f:i.led. 1'rer appeal,

the Order p:rov:i.d.ed damages :f:o:r M:rE,. Wa.sh:i.nqt:on. Thus, if Westerri

Reserve Ar'ea Agency o:r.t Agi:r..tg t).ad :f.`o1.Lowed 'f.:k.i.e Order, they would,

have had per.sona.l l:i.ab:i.7.ity due t:o tY.te.:i.:r w:r.on.gf'u.l a.ct:i.o:ns taken

5

against Mrs. Wash.i_ngton. 'Lha.t th.ey cc>u.ld. n.o't: hide and. get

"reimbursed" f.o:r siztce th.e .;er.v:i.ccfa wci:re not: p:r:ovidc:d by a

"Medica._id" provider. M:r;;. Wa.sh.:i.:agi:on, once w:rong:f:u:Lly termi.nated

f'.rom the Ya.ssporL 10 -A p:rcag:r'am, wae, :not: a.b:l.e t.o :k:eep tk.te same

providers because of the:i.:r cont::raca w:i.T:h tate St:aLe of Ohi.o to NOT

prov'id.e se:rvices to a tc-::r.•aci.:u.a.ted. .F>a.:ri::i.r,:i.pant.: for.• a certain ,period

of time. Thus, M.r.s.. Wa.sY.i.:i.n.gt:on. kAad, to go ou.t.;i.de the rea.l..m of

only seeking a. "Med:i.ca.:i..d" ce:r.i-:i.ii.e:il, p:rc v:i.d.e.'.r.•, to wh.i.ch a.t: all

times relevant, Wester:n. 12.ese:rve .11:rea Agency on. Aging knew this.

Thus, they have eont:i.nu.ed to a:ck:now:l.c=.dgc roce::i:pt.; .p:rovaded to

them as l.eg.i t.:itrta.tc:, a.tt empt:i.r.tq to :I.cd i.l:::i.m:i rc. tt.ie:i.r actions of

non-payment: to those p.rov':i.d.rrs.

The expenses th.at accumul..atc.d. by M:rs. Wa.sh.ir.tyton during

Weste.rn. R.casc.:r.v'e Area. Za.genc;y or.a. Ag:i.n.g's; ncrn.-compl:i.a.n.ce period from

February 5, 2000 to Ma.:rc:}.t 28, 2000 l:.tac; :bee:n. repeatedly documented

th•rou.ghout these procecd.:i.r..iqu.. '1'h:i.s i::r:i_bu:na.l. ha.s written in its

Opinion t:hat su.ch documer.t'Lti we:r.-e needc.d to „u.paxxr.t tt.te testimony

of the many prov:ide:ra; w:tto t.csit:i.f:i.ecf dtr.:r:i.nq the p:r.oceed.i.n.gs that

in fact, they p:rovided. a se:rv:i.ce:; to M:rse Wa.i;h:i_ngl:ox.t, we:re paid

for that. service, h.eld. tta.e cou:n.tc:r.- ch.c:c.k: .i.z.i. abe.ya'n.ce unt:i.1 those

monies could be sought f'.'r:or[t We: tci:rn l.d.e:[',c:rve: h'rea. Agency on Aging,

or if that provider could. rtot wa.:i t, to noi.i:l:y the Gua:rc9.:l.a.n, LuAnn

Mitchell. At tha'L juncture, the Gua:rd:i_a.r.t, .Respond.e:n.t, :Lu11n:n

W

M.itchell., k.i.ad agreed to secure th.r_ :f.u.ncfs :f::or mo:n.ies due Mrs.

Washingto.n's providers. The (u.a:rc3.:i.an is auf h.or:izec9. to advance

funds to the Wa.rd' E3 esi:a.te, a.mon.g oth.e:r fiduciary d:ut::ies of

"collecting a]..7. debts due the ward" (See EIXI3: C, Pa.:r.a., 4). See

also. :E}CT-I D, :FIDCICJ:ATZY'S ACC".lsP'1.'ANCE, G,u.a'.r:d.:i_a:n. oI`. the Person,

Para. 1).

Fortunately, as many o1' t:kie p:rov:i.de::rs testified during the

disciplinary hea:ri.:ng Dece-.mbc.:r 1.3, 2007, t.:hey had Y.te].d the counter

checks without c:a.sh9..nq tk.i.em.. As a. .re.su.llof a. mc-:mo th.a.t: went out

to the prov:f.de:rs of M:rs. Was;Y.i.i:n.gt;on d.ated. Augu.eal: :1:9, 2002 (:EXH V)

eacY.i was a.s.ked to ret:u:rn the ccrunte:r cJ:.i.ec:k:a:a t:hey we:re given to

compensat:e th.em for cea.r.o eacYi. b.ad.c q:ivcn t:o Mrs. Washington

during the per:i.od. o.F February 5, 2000 t:b::raugka. Ma:rcb. 2.8, 2000.

(Notc, tY.ta.t whe.n. tka:s ttiemo wc:n.9: out: , 1.1 was 2X yea.:rs since the

counter checks Y.lad. :beer.i w:r:i.tton.,. 7'hu s, 2':rom a legal standpoint,

any counterchecks rei:u:rn.e:d wc::re: a t:al.ci, a.:n.d could have 7.eqal.ly

been di_sca.r•ded. as opposed to returned t:o 13esF>on.dent.. However,

one provider, Sims Con.;t:ruci::i.on Company, did locate its stale

checks and. :retu:rned them to :K.espo:r.ident, Lu-A:r.in M:i.'Lc:h.e].1. (EXT-I W)

AROUMEN'i'

Th.e findings aga.i.n.;t: :[;uAn:n. M:i.tch.el.:1 caesek to punish her

for contempt, fr:i.vo-l.c,u.s l:i.tiqa.'C:i.on :f:i.nd.:i.ng, anc9./o.r sanctions.

The :f_act: of tY.i.e ma.ttc:r :i.s that or..i oc:obc:r 29:, 2003, Jud.qe John

^

Co.rrigan., who p'res:i.d.ed o've.:r this cae;e, f'o:r t.h.:rce years, :Eound. Ms.

M.iLch.ell di_d. NOT violate 12:u:1.e :1.a., 7 urcb.c-.:r, she was n.oL

sanctio:n.ec9. by the Probate Cou.:r't. for any alleged d.:i.scove:r.y

violations, was not o:rd.c-.:red. to pay oppos:i.:rtg coun...:e:l.'s (Dale

Nowa.k) attorney feea, eand. wa.sa za.ol:. :f.ound to h.a:ve cngaged. :i.n

frivolous condu.ct/a.i.ti.qa:t:i.oai. under >ect:ion. 2323..!i:l. of th.c Ohio

Revised Code. l:t: was or.i.l.y due to a. su.bsecXuent ruling by

Magistrate Ch.a.:rles Brown, wh.o ha.s ne vo:r.• been p:ro'.f;ess:ional.:l.y

courteou.s to 12eapond.errL, wa.c-; ll.4e:re a re:ve:rsa.l of Judge Cor:r.igan's

previously ru.l_i.ngs, an.d. a:l.l. done w:i.tl.cou.t the pa.:ri;ic:Lpa.t.ion o:r

:inpzzt form Itespond.enL as tl.te dcc _i.s:in.n. wa.s gra.n:bed by .I)I;.l?AU:LT

JUDGMENT due to a f:aiaurc o:L Dale ]Vowa.k., c oun.r;cl. fo:r West:e.r:n.

Reserve Area. Agency on Aging, to e,e:rve :L-2.e:spon.d.en.t a.bou.t notice of

the hearing a.s he wan :requ.:i.:red. ta do by th.o :r?:r.'o:ba.te Court. It

should be noted t h.a.t t:h.e I?:ro:ba.t:e Cou.:rt:, :i.t ie..l.:t.`, DOES NO'.C se:rve

such not.ice of a pending hea:r:i:ng o:n. L:Y.i,o :R.c:spo:n.d.c:nt., a:; it was the

r•esponsik>il'ii.y ot 1_)a.le Niawa:k:, Hsq.. to <9.o so, per cou.rt order.

Once the Magi.st.r,a.Le' s:ru.l.:i:ngn wc-,re :i.,;aued., rt. thewas

responsibili..ty of. westerr.. Iterserve Area Agc:.nc:y on. Ag:ing' s

attorney, Dale Nowak., to not.:i.:f'.y I2.of;.pond.ezit:, I,c(tnn Mi.tch.ell., of a

hearing date for the rema:nc9. o:F 1:l.ie*. :i.;ar;uos.. A.; 72espon.dent has

always aesert:ed., Attorney '1)a'.I e Nuwa:k 1+A.I:I,1-;:11 to notify Respondent

MitcY.tell of the hearing c9.atc^.. Since Il.osponde:n.t: could not appear

8'

as sh.e was w:ithout k:nowa.edqe of the h.c>_a.:r:i.nq date before Lhe

Probate CourL, a default ju.dgaic:.:n.t: wra.:; en.te::rod. aqa:i.:n.st Respondent,

in the amoun.t of a:pprox:i:ma.Le:f.y $3:;, 000.. 00. ':I'haL is LY.ce :is.;u.e

currently befo:re the :P:robat:c: Cou:rL wh.:i..c:4 wa.s; h.ea.:r_'d on. April 23,

2008, the same daae Lh.e Ob.io iupreme Cou:rl: issuead sanctions

a.gain.st Respondent, LuAnn. M:i.t:che:l.a., on. a ma.tt:c.r cu'.r:rc:n.ta..y pending

in the court syst:em. :Ct: is ).tospor.id.enl:'s pos:i.l:.:i.ora tatat the ma.tter,

before th.e Ohio Supreme Cou.:ct .3hou.lc9. h.avc bc.e:n. st.-.a.yed fo:r t:h.is

reason. Instea.d of rushing t:o i.ssu.e:, san.cL:i.ons against R.espondent.

Alt.houg'h. R.c.spon.c9.er.t has prac:t.:i.ced. l.aw :i.n i:.t.te State of Ohio Eor 25

years, and as m:i.Liga.t:i.n.g :f'acrLo:r& ha.H n.ever had a previous

d`.i.scipl_.i.:naxy matter re:ndc:rec9. aqa:i.:r.i.sU her, has :re-d.e:voted her

p.r_actic:e, a f'Ler rc t.ir:i.ng, to pracl.-::i.c e p:r:i.:nr.i.pa.l.7.y t:.o low a.nd.

moderate-in.come c1.9_enL o who m:iq`.ht. not: ha:ve: becn able to f9:n.d

rep'resenLat.ion el..sc:whc:r.e, oir.r a p:ro bono ba.sis, nol:wit:h.st:and.:i.ng

her lack o:[: resources, was ge:nu:i.n.e a:nd s:i.nce:re :in he.r commitments

and legal accountability to t.tu:r poo:r, :f'ra:i.a. and el.d.e:rly clients,

suc:h as Mrs. Ber_tk.ra.kra.s:h.:i..:ngto:n (who, by the way, was ass:igned as

the Ward of Respo:n.c9.cnt t>y the :P:r.o:baa.c Cou.:rY. of Cuyahoga County

a.:Ete:r. the Cu.ya.hoga. Counf:y Ad:u].L Y:rotocL.i-vea Se:rv:i.ce:s investigated

Relator/ Compla i_n.a.:n.t , Wesl:e:r:a. laese:rva Area. Age:ncy o:n. Ag:i.ng. '1'h.e

result of thai: an '.rc:po:r.te:d. to t:he. Probate Court of'

Cuyahoga County, was t:h:n.i:: Weste:rn. 'Ra:;c:rve E1.:rea Agency had INDEED

1

ABUSED, NFC,I:;F1C'1},I) a:r.td. F,7C1?1 0.1 f13J7 Mrs.. 13e:rl:h.a. Wash:i.ngt:on f.'o:r S'/z

years BEFORE R.cspo:r.id.e:nt: wa;; aFrF;o:i.r.iLed, 'la.ie: Gu.e.:rd:i.ea:n o:f. M:rs.

Wash.i.ngton ox.i J`u:l.'y :12, :1.999.. .Cron.:i.ca:l.a:y, tk.t:i.aa case came into

being and ex.:i..sted only bocau,sc; M:r:a. Be:rl.:b.a. WasY.):i..r_)qLon ha.s been

reported as ABUSED, N7K IJ C.'.t'Na) arid. ai'XNLOI7"LID, by Rel.a.tor/

Compl.a.inant:, West:er.n R.ese:rv'ca A:rea A<lenc:y o:n. Aq:i.nq. 7'hose

complaints were substa.nt:i.a.ted.! As ;a .rc:rruat:, Cu.y'a_h.oqa Count.y

Adult Protect::i:ve Service Social Wo:rke:r, 1:3e].:i.:nda. M:i.:L:l.e:r_•-M_i.:l.es,

filed with th.e Probate Cou:rL to have a Gua:rd:i.a:n appo:i.n'ted to

protect M.r,;. Wash'i.ngton. :N1:2.OM WI ;'.1'1S11N RI:'Sk3R.Vl:; AI.tL:A AGENCY ON AC3IN'G

and any involvement _i..n. :i.Ge-: gcave:rnme.nt spon.sored. PASSPORT 10 A

Program, to which Mrs. Wasb.:i.n.gLo.n. had 1>cen en:rol.l.od under t:h.e.i.:r

care a:nd oversight for 5{ .yeaea.r ;.be:f:ore R.esponde.r.tt was appca;i.nt.-.ed

a.s G,uar_d.i.an by the Y:robat:e Cou:rt: (on July :1.2, :1.999) based on

substant:i_ai.e.d a.buse t:owa:rdo M:r.;a. Wasb.:i.r.i.qto:n..

As pa:rt of Responde:n.i:`ca Niot:i.o:n i'or- :Recon;;i.de..r.'a.L:i.on,

Respondent has aL:ta.cti.e=_d the :f`.o.L:Low:i.ng ad.d.:i.i::i.o:n.a:l documents that

as far as R.espondoni: can d.etu:r.m:i.ne:, wo:rc: :not.: p:rc:sen.ted by

Respondents' former counsel, ALto:rncy :1:1.ashonda Rtran,. Ct should

be r.toted that R.espo:ndenL wan n.ot irtak-.:inq d.ec:i.;s:.i.on.s as to which

documents to p:reser.)t, dur:i.ng t h.:i.a mat:te:::r, although su.ch. documents

were pr.esen.t:ed to Attorney Oe:o9.`:f.':rc:y St:c;rn d:u.:r:i.n.q his se.lecl:.ion of

Attorney Rash.eeda K:h.a.n L.o :rcprottc:m.i: 1tca:;K;onc9.e:rtL. becauc-;e o:f'

'Q

Attorney St:er'n.' s per.td:i.:r.iq su.:rye:r.y :['crr ca.:rpa.l tu:n:oel s'yndrome

during the time of tt.te d.i.sc:i.p.l.:ix.ta.:r'y pr•oceed.i.z.tq t.tea..d on Dece¢tber

12, 2007 and December 13, 2007 :i.n Co:l.uztibuo, Ohio,

'Po di.spe:7. the Okt:i.o Sup:remo Cou:r1.;"°^. ^..^ ^:c:;<„c^:ri;:i.nr.t th.a.t. "not

even one document wa.rd.p:rod.uced", Respondent suk>ttri.ts the following

d.ocument-se

A- Motion. f:o:r Relief f:rom J'u.d.qmaz.ct.;, p:resent:l..,y pending, :fi.led.

November, 2007.

B - :Letter con.f::i-rm:i-ng hea.:r.i..nq da.t cxo. Mot;:i. a:n :Eo:r. )3.e-f.:i.e:C f.r.om

Judggm.e.nt :i..s Apri1. 23, 2008, sa.me dsa.te of ia.te Ohio Supreme Court:

decision in this ma.tter.

C - Gua:rdi.an's dut:i.e:s ( Sec 04, in pa:c°l::i.cu].a.:r)

D - Gua'rd=i.ar.i.°s Acceptanr.c ( See II 1, (;u.a.:r.d.ian o:[ t}.i.c: Person, in

pa.rticular.)

G- Ohio Supreme C:ou:rt: se:c.tt c:e:r•t:i.:l::i.c:(i ma.:il d:u:r:i.ng p:roceec9.:ings to

an address, "375 13J3MO.llltiL ( sp/v:i.c:) 11121:'VJ4" wl.t:i.cl:.c was n.on.-ex:istent,

m:isspell.ed and. t:raneK>osed., th:u.; c:ou.:l.d nol: t.tave :rc.a.ch.ec9.

R.espondent. As a:rc°su:Lt, tb.e Ohio Sup:rcme Cqu.:r.'t i ssued a.request

for Default Jud.qmen.t to bo :ren.d.c:rod taqa.:i.n„t; 72.espond.ent;. This

address cou:Ld r.tot: be: ca. Loua.a.tc:d. to .re:a.c,):.t Respondent o:r be timely

add.r.essed by R.espondent;. AS such, :i.t: wer.ll: u.ncla.i.mcnd and.

undel.ivered..

F - R.espond.e:nta previous :res:,a.dc.r.tr.c a.dd:rost; a.i: 375 RALMOI2A'h llR:I\IL,

^^

was sold. on December 30, 2005, wh.:.l.ck.i. wa.., k>ofo:re^^ the Ohio Supreme

Court attempted. to u.t:i..]..:i.re tY.ta.t a.d.d:ress; i.:n. hI<a:r.ch, 2006. At all

times relevant, R.espondent ei v':i.akil.e Pos'L Office

13ox:, at Box 08531, C-1..evela.nd, Ohio 9:9:1.08, whale a'i:tempL:ing to

financially :re-g':roup .from poo:r, fr'a:i.a. and. elde:r:l:y

seni.or Clt..:i.cc.ns u:ade:r t_t.tc ca.:r.c, W. R.c;spo;n.d.ent...

As sta.Led. duri.:ng tho ;p:roc,c.r_c9.i..zi<i^ ; t.i.e:Ld before t.Y.tc Ohio

Supreme Court oz.t Decetrt>e:r '12, 2007, la.erspo:ctd.czi.ia .p:rima:r.Y

domi,cile/resi.d.ence succuna>ed. to :Fo:recl.os'u:re2 procecd3.ng's du.e to

Responde:rtt-:'s efforts to ass:i.st: Lh.c; poo:r, fa.:il a:nd. elderly

popu7.ation she vo:l.untee:rec3. t:o se:rve.: a.nd. „e,r.-v:i.ce..

G--Stat:e Hearing llec:i.sion. (Second. O)r-te) da.tc-.d. 6/2:1/00 ordering

t.hat: "Appel.:).anL 4ir,a,k.t.i.ngto'n. S1iFSG1, he :r'e:i.r[tt)ursc.ci f'.o.r.- tt.te ca're she

paid. f.or d'ur:i.:ng t-tri. ; per:i.od. COMI.I?.h:1(iN(.=.L1 :I:S 171,QI7aIt:f,a)„ (See page 5

of '1, Fi.na.l Adm:i.n._i.sLr.a.t:i.ve, 'Llc-^(":i-s:i-o.a a:r.td O'I2.1)h,R.)

Ii - Explanation of Sta.tc: I.Iea.:r:i.:r.tct I?:r•oc;edu:rcs ( See p. 2,

"Compliance w.ith the l:iea:r:inq

I- Com.pl.iance w:i.th tt.tc 1:=fea.:r':i.ng L)oc:•:i.; :i.on.. (Ol.t.i.o Adm:i.r.z:ist.r.a.t.i.ve

Code Se.ci:ion. 51.)

J- B:inding lii'f.ec:t of I)e:c:i.;;:i.or.t oz.t WesLern Reserve

Area Agen.cy on. Ag:i.ng, pu.:r.-sua.n.t to Secl::i.on 10.01.;6 '/-0:1. (H:) of Lh.e

Ohio Adm.i.ni.straL:i.ve, Cod.e

R. - Fo.r.ged State 11ea.:r:i.ng Contp:l.:iar.tcc nol::i.cc a`:i.a.ed. by^ V.i:rqi_n..i.a.

12.

Ri:nge:l, State 1=1e-:ar:i:nq Conrp:l.:i.axl.cc: C>:f.`:f`:i.ce:r.

L - Be:rt:h.a Wa.shi.ngton expc,nd.:i.t:u.:res to be re inikru.:rsed. :f'or the

period :['ebru.a.:r,y 2, 2000 to Ma:rc:h. 2CS, 2000

M - Aff:ada:vi.t o:C Respondent M:i.t.c.he7..i a.:C:f`:i.:rm:i.nq i:h.at: some receipts

cou.ld n.ot be f.ou:n.d due to the pa.:, sa<lc of t::i.me of`. 't'WO years,

although duly val:id a:nd e:n.:f. .o:rcoa:ba.e e:xpo:n.csca

N - R.eceipt su.bmi'ttcad. for Weas;h.i:ca.qi:a:a.'n ;I?mo:rqc:n.c:.y Monitoring

Response System, :insta:I.:Led. :i.n fa.ca:r h,omc locat:ed at 1Ott2:1. l:ta.mpden.

Avenue, Cleve:fan.d., Oh:i.o 44108 by Perry W:i ]:I.:i.ams a.nd :[.a:r.:ry

Randa.7-l. (w:ho testified at Respondent's d i sc: i Ki-l.:i_nary h.ea:r:ing in

April 2007)

O- Rece:i.pt, submi'LL-ed. for ex:pencae :a.L Was:hi.ngton h.ouseh.ald.

(furnace)

P - ReceipL su:bm9.'CLcyd. for e:x..pe:n.se a.L Wa.s}:.t:i.ngto:c.i. ;hotxsek.holci

(Minor home mod.:i.:E.i.caL:i.cans to :k::i..t::c::h.en a.r..cc9. ba.'l:h., as M:rs. Wash:ington

was conf:ir.ted to a wheelchair a.nd. :h.c:r h.couse wa.t; mod.:i.L:i.ed and ma.de

compliant w:i-th the American w:i.t,h. ll:i.sab:i.:l.:i.f:i.es Act: for a.

handicapped pe:rson.)

Q-- R.ec:ei-pt subm:i.Lt:ed. for ex:pe:n.cae a.i: Wa.sh.:i.n.gton h.touse:h.o:Ld (Nurse,

Madelyn lla:vis, who Lest:i.1.`:i.ed at t.h.u d.:i_sc::i,K>:l_:i.n.a.:ry h.tea.ring that

R.espondc.:nt gave her a c:h.eck d:ra.w.n on. Nati.ona.a.. City 13a.r.i:k:, wh.L:i.c:h.

she was su.bsequ.ent]..y paid...

NOi'li: The 1.2e: I at.o:r,' ,; Cou.:n.,;c.:l., a;; wea.l a; Atao:r.n.ey Dale Nowak

0

on behalf of Western Reserve A:re:a. .A(ieir.i.cy o:n Aq:i.ng, only sough.t

to examine R.espondent:' s Ba.n.:k. :reco:rd.s :f'or a:r.sothc.r : C:i_:na:nc:i_a.:1

instit.u.tio:n., Charter One Ra.n:k... Tas.c.y tk.ten. madc, t::ki.e hu.gc,

a.ssunrpti.on, that because t.F.i.e co'u.:nte:r cihec:k:s were not a..ocated a.s

c:as>-.ted., R.espo:nd.ena :h.ad. :bee:n. u:n.t:ruL}.d`.u.:l... '1':ki:i..s i.,; :i.:n.co'r.'rect arsd

was unsubst:.a.nt:ia.t:ed., :resu.lt:i:ra.q :i:o. th.e. Ohio Sup:reme Cou:rt

upholding pure specu.la.t:ion a:n.d c:o:rajec:t:u:re on. t:h.e pa:rt o2' R.elator

and. Attorney Dale Nowak.

'Phe ot::her rece.i;pts evidence th.e :rc:i..tribu.:r.sa.t>le c:.xpenses of

light housekeeping serv:i c.es .Ksc rfo:r-rtu^^d a.t the residence o.P. Bertha

Wash:i..ngton.

R. - Receipts ( ca.nceaed checks) :[ .or home ca.:re se:rv:i.c:es

S- Receipts ( can.cel.cid ch.eck:s) :fo:r :b.omc: care se:r.v:i.ces

`i' - R.eceipt. s(ca.:nceled. checks) :f'.o:r :F.ome ca:re: a;e:rv:i.c:es

U - Receipt (ca:nce7.ed check) :f`or h.ome ca:re services

V - Memo requesting a.ll p:r.cw:i.c9.e:rs ret:u.rn stalo r,ou.:n.t:e:r checks

issued to them dated August 1.9, 2002

W- Two coun.t:e:r checks ret:u.:r::o.ed to Respondent f:rom Provider (Sims

Construction Company) o:f: es:per..i.d.:i,ture:: o:rd.c:rc;d :r.e:i_mbu.'r.sa:ble to

Bertha Washington

X - Receipt :N.o.r' home ca.:re adaptable c:qu.:i.pctAC::n.t :f-.o:r. M:r.s., Wa.s:h.i'ngton

Y- reirtibursable ex.pend.i.t:u.:re;s fo:r Tv[rs. Wa.sh.:i.:ngton ( med.ic:a:l

equipment ars.d. doc:9:.o:r. v:i.s:i.ts)

iq

Z - Affidavit of Pa'Lr:i.c:i.a. W:i.:l.T:i-ams ack:nowl.ed.q.i.n.y ,aho worked a

minimum of 2 h.ou:rs per day, 7 da.y=; a wee:k:, d xr i.nq t:he p :i.od of

rei.mbu:rsed expen.di.Lures. Ms. Williams tor:;L:i.i':iod during th.e April

S, 2007 di.scip.Linary p:roceed.:i.:nq tki.a.L sbe wo:r:k:eci ma.ny mo:r•e hours

and i::illed in. tor otk.ie:rci wh.om nc:cc>.:,"a.:ry an she was t11e supervi.sor

on "Team Wash:i.ngt:o'n".

AA - A:f'.i':i-da:v:i.t o:f` W:.i.:l.l.:i.e Mae Owens, who provided home c°_a.re

services during the :re:i.mbu:rued cx;pc:rcd:i.t-:u.:re pc:r:.i.od.

13II -- Invo:i.cn for rei.Rrhursab.l.e>_ sc::rv':i.co,^ :rend.e:red to Wa.sh.inqt:on.

from P'am:i.c:os Fou.n.d.at::i,on.

CC - Reply t:o Re.laLor'/ Weste.:rn R.c-:se:rv'e Area Aqe.n.c'y on. Aging

(WRAAA) fa.l.se claim to Ciy:ya.hoga. Cou.nty Ac3aA7.t 7?:rot_ect-.ion. ligency

that R.c.sponde:at. M:it-cheJ.J. h.a.d abused and n.oglec'Ced. M:r.s..

Washington. WRAAA. was lsc.e.k::i:cl I::a ha.aav'c> Nl:rr;.. Wa..;t.t:c:acton.'3 case

retu.rned to tl:.iom a.nd. R.c>„pcrndGnt: :romnv'c:d by the P:r•o;;>a.te Court as

Guardian of Mrs. Wao:FAi:ctgton..

DD - WRAAA soug'aL, u.n.su.c:cc>s:a:l'u:l.:l.y, L:o have ca.sea :re-apened to

overturn Respondents TWO ad.m.i.:n.:i.eat:ral:.:i.ve hea:r:ix.tq d.ec:i.si.ons against

them da.ted. March 28, 2000 ao.d. J'uu.e 21, 2000

FE - Dale Nowa.k, :Elsq. ]'.naae:r dated Ja.nua.:ry 22, 2002 see:k::i_ng to

.r.e-open case s:i-n.cc: he d.:i.d. not :rep:r'cs,te:nl: Wl.2AAA a.L tai.e Li.me o:E the

two a.dm:i.n.i.ett:ra.tive h.ea.r:i'nca d.c::i.,;:icrns '.r'encie:re9. agrt.:i.nsL them

NOTli e Dale Nowak. t::r.':i.ed Lo h:i.d.o t.:hc>_ fa.ct LhaL l:h:i-s :LeL:te'r'

15

existed. I:E it d.:i.d ex::i.st_, Pa2.:CO.I.t. to his e f':fo:rt.,o to do anything

but pay thc P:C:N:11G, I3:CN:1)I:NC"; awa:rd of M:r't;;. Wask.t:i.r.tqto:n aga:i.n.st: his

newly a.cqui.red cl i.on.t:, tt.cen. .[4Ll.o:rn.ey Nowa.k bad abso:lu.tel.y NC)

lega.l basis t:o '.ee-s c.st K>ayme,nt a.nd. f i.Lc count l..e>.s.: mnt:.ions from

2002 until 2008 (presenL) !

FF -- Dale Nowak:'s d.ecept:ive. ":f v:i.den.ce o:P. 1le:P.er..edant' s Z\t'to:rneys'

Fees" sYu.et: wh.:i.cFt f:a:i :l.s l:o :r.'c f e ren.ce his ;i xt i.t:i al lette:r dated

January 22, 2002 (see }.+fact;.i-b:i.t; L,RI).. 1:1' so, Nowak had no legal

basis fo:r in.rtru.c'l.:i:n.g h:is c7.:i.e:n.t: to t:ry to :re-a.:it:i.gatc this

matter as FROM ':I:I.LL OUTSET a:nd t:imo oc Attorney :Nnwa.k:'s

intervening, t:Y.te matte:r was final a:nd. b'.i.n.d.:i.n.g on. Wl2A.AZa„ M:r.

Nowak.' s cl:i.c:n t. 'i'h.e:i.:r .i..n.s1:::ru.ca::i.on.s [':rom t.he:i.:r regulation, the

Ohio Department of Adm:i.n.:i,si.ra:t:i:ve. :3c:r.a:i.cet:, at t:hat junct.ur.e, was

to pay the expenses to Mrs. Wa.sk.:i:r.tcat:on

GG -- findings from I?.roba.Lie Cou:r.•t :i_:nv'esl::i.qa.i:o:r wh..i ch. we:re, cont:rary

to the false claim made by 17alc N'owa:k:, Hsd'.. a.:nd. WRA[1A about

R.espond®n.t a.businq an.d. ne-.glc:ci::i.n.g M:r;. Wae:}:;.:i.nc3t:on, axxd. a.s a

result, t:Y.ta.t Wa.sh:i_ngt:on sh.ou.].d. :bc :r:c:tu:rncd 't.o tbem a.nd. Respondent

Mitchell should be removed an M:r,3. Vira.sk.t:i.ngton. ' s C.Y:carc9.:ian.

Hl3 - Expenses rei.nbu.:rsa.ba.e i:.o M:rs. Wa.sk.i.:i:nc3tox.t a.ea ackn.owled.ged by

WRAAA

II -- Example of IJa.le Nowa.k:'st sb.o:rt: :n.ot::i.ce:3 (h.c-;:rc, 2 da.ys)to

R.espond.ent M:i.tch.caa.l to 1-.;.o:l.d her d.epos:i.t i.on.. Wt.cen Mitchell d..ic3.

I (P

not timely .r.eceive suck.. x.rat:i_c;e, cat.i.i.c}.i .Nbwak ca.:lcu.lat.e:d, would be

the case due to the ext:romo sk.io:rL or t_:i.co, Attorney Nbwak wou.ld

hail .ir.it:o Prabate Court w:i.t't.t a cont.c.nrpt: mot::i.on acia:i.nst Respondent

Mitchel.l. 1or :f.`a.i.:l.u:ro to show, a.l.l th.o wh.:i:fe requc ;t::i.:ng his

attorney fees for same, and :r•un:n.:i r.rq tb.em up us:i zrq i:h.:i s method as

well. Attorney Nowak's d.ef'au:l.L judclnronL aqa.:i.nc;l.: 'R.espand.ent

M:itchell is based on sa.me..

JJ -'repl.y to Nowa.k t:ha.t Sta.l:ea k.i.e*_a.:r:i.:rrqr; bu:re:a:u. i.,; pa'ol.t:ib.i.ted from

.r.e-opening case and. WRAAA mu.;t pay M:r,,. Wash.:i.:ngton.

K:K - Attorney Dale Nowa.k. ;;ou.dlat He.;ponr3.nxa.t. M i 1-.c:heJJ_' s depos_i.t:ion

OV'C'R. ONE YL.AR. a.'f`.tc*r th.e case h.<ad bc;o:n d.:i sm:i.ssod.

lil - Cuyahoga Bar Assoc i.ai::i.crn. cr iq:i...na.l.:l.y mad.e a dctorm-i rxa.t-i.on.

that: R.esponde:n.t M_i t:ck.i.el.:L c9.:i.d NOT comm:i.t: v':i.o 1.at:i..ons of the Cod.e o:E

P'ro'Lessional. R.espon.s:i-b:i.:l.it:y.. .17V sp:i.te o1' this finding, dated.

Febr.nary 20, 2004, the C..:t.eve::l.an.ci, Bar 7S;:;soc:i.a.i::i.cxn 1.dP;...7?R.OSEICUTLL)

R.esponden'l_- M:itchell on. thesc: .;a.mc c::h.a.rgos, :re:;u].i::i.:nq i.n the Ohio

Stxpreme Cou:rt sa:r.i.ction._i.nq M:i.tc.he.fLt. by O:rd.c::r dated. np:ri.l. 23, 2008.

This :is tantamount to d.o'uble joopa:r'c9:y!

MM - Duxing the hear'i:n.g an llcaCeniko:r :1.2, 2007, Chief Jueatice

Moyer questioned Rcapor.i.de:n.t: M i i e:hc::l.l.. abouS. th.e e l c ctr.icaa. meter

a.lleged stolen by Atto.rmey M:i.tck.i.ea..l o:F:f' o:f.` :r.i,ar re s.id.e:ace. This

entry confirms R.e:spond.e-.nt:s tcst:i.mony t:ha.l:. 1.2.esponde>_ni a.z.d.

Respor.tden.t' s Attorney, Pd.wa:rd. fl . Wa.d.a, J:r, , had sought and.

(7

received pe.rmi.ssion in that case, M:i.tc:hel.l v. :CLlum:i.n.at.ing

Company, in the Court of Comnio:n Paeas, Case No. 46255°i, to

pr.eserve the meter at .Attor:n.ey Wade's o:f`:f-:i.cc-.. TY.rus, M:i.tchel.l was

not guilty of theft as a].legcd, but merc.ly sought to preserve the

evidence of the meter, wk.cich ha.d been used to cut Mitchell, which

was at issue in that 1.a.wsu:i.t.

NN - Pr.oof that Il.lum:i-natir.ig Compa.n.y :re:c:e.i.ved n.otic:e of hearing

to preserve meter, th.us, no theft cou.ld have ,r.esu.a.ted wh.en. the

meter was in Respon.d.ent.' y possessions a.tt:o:r.ne ';a ^under a court

order to keep it.

00 - Pr.oof that ]:l1u.m_inat:ing Compa:ra.y recx.:i_ved r.ioti.ce of hear'ing

to preserve meter, thus, no th.eft cou.ld have resulted when the

meter was in Respond.ent' s att:o:r:rzexy' s possession under a court:

order to keep it.

PP - Copy of Slip Opi.n.i.on :No. 2008-Oh.:i.o-7.822.

For the foregoing reasons, i2.e.;po:n.d.cnt p:rays for relief that

her Motio:n..f.or. Reconsid.erat.i.czn :be g:ra:n.ted, an.d. any disciplinary

action against her be sta.yod during the review of tk.i.is matter.

Respectfully sut>m:ittod.,

COPY1:,uArnn Mitchell, Esq. (0007205)

Respondent Pro SePo[1t: Office 13ox: 08531

C].eve].a:nd., Ohio 44108

216. 4.B6. 0029:

!g

CEll`.L'IFICA9'G O:li SLI:R:VI.Cli1

I certify th:a.t a copy o:L' t'Y.e i'.o:rego`Lxiq Mot:ion. for

R.econsidera.tion was forwa.rded to Sksel.:i.A. Mc:LCear.i, Timothy

Fitzger•ald. Attorneys a.t. Law Gaa.].aq`.Li.e:r, Sh.a.r;p 1.501 Euclid Avenue

Clevela.nd., Ohio 9:9:1.1.5 T.h.i.s, 51' day o:f'. May 2008.

:L;uA:rira. NT"Ti :cTle::Ll.; Esq (0007205)

Rc>spondent, Pro Se

19

IN THE COURT OF COMMON.PLEASPROBATE DIVISION

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

Plaintiff ) JUDGE JOHN E. CORRIGAN

Washington, IncompetentL. MITCHELL, Guardian for Bertha L. ) CASE NO. 2002 ADV 59296

MOTION FOR RELIEFWESTERN RESERVE AREA ) FROM JUDGMENT

vs.

AGENCY ON AGING,

Defendant

Now comes Luann Mitchell, by and through her counsel, and hereby moves this

Honorable Court to vacate and set aside the flnal judgment entered against her on

November 22, 2006, a copy of which Is attached, on the ground that Movant did not

receive proper notice of the hearing held on November 9, 2006 and the same resulted in

the judgment which was adverse to her.

Respectfully submitted,

EGIDIJUS MARCINKEVICIUS #0010766BRENDA T. BODNAR #0007035Attorneys for Luann MitchellALGIS SIRVAITIS & ASSOCIATES880 East 185th StreetCleveland, OH 44119(216) 692-1222

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Motion for Relief from Judgment was sent by regularU.S. mail, postage prepaid, to Dale A. Nowak, Esq., One Cleveland Center, Suite 1700,1375 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, on this _ day of November, 2007.

EGIDIJUS MARCINKEVICIUS #0010766BRENDA T. BODNAR #0007035Attorneys for DefendantALGIS SIRVAIIIS & ASSOCIATES

2

ALGIS SIRVAITIS & ASSOCIATESAttorneys at Law

ALGIS SIAVAIT7S

EGIDIJUS MAACINICEVICIUS

ALMIS J. STEMPU2IS

880 EAST 185TH STREET • CLEVELAND, OHIO 44119-2797

TELEPHONE (216) 692-1222 • FAX (216) 531-8687

April 9, 2008

Ms. Luann MitchellP.O. Box 08531Cleveland, OH 44108

Re: Cuyahoga County Probate Court Case No. 2002 ADV 59296

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

Please be advised that the above referenced matter has been scheduled for ahearing on April 23, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. In front of Judge John E. Corrigan.

Please call my office as soon as possible to schedule a date and time to meetprior to the hearing.

Very truly yours,

Egidijus Marcinkevicius

/dcp

/

PROBATE COURT OF CUYAHOGA COUNTYDivision of tfie Court of Common Pleas

JOHN J. DONNELLY JOHN E. CORRIGANPRESIDING JUDGE .) . . . . JUDGE . . . .

INSTRUCTIONS TO GUARDIANS

Every guardian should consult w(th an attorney, during the progress di the administration of the guardianship.

Every person who receives letters of appointment as guardian frdm the Probate Court becomes an officer of theCourt, and as such Is responsible by law, and under the bond, to faithfully discharge all duties, among them being thefollowing:

1. Immediately after being appointed and pending Investment, as provided by law, the guardian must depositall funds on hand, or received, In one or more depositaries In the name of the guardian of hts wards, orward. Each depositary must be a national bank located In the state, or a bank In the state, or trustcompany operaUng under the laws of the state. Satisfactory proof of such deposits must be made to theCourt when the account Is filed. Funds belonging to the ward must be kept separate and distinct fromother funds. All wills of the ward must be deposited with the Court for safekeeping.

2. Within three months after the date of the appointment, the guardian shall make and return to this Courtan inventory showing all real and personal property belonging to the ward. A form for such purpose issupplied by the Court.

3. No funds shall be used for the support, maintenance or education of a ward unless authorized by the^ Court,

1 4. ) The guardian shall pay all just debts of the ward including Court costs when due from the ward's assetsand collect all debts due the ward. The guardian shall also settle and adjust the assets with the approvalof the Court.

5. The guardian is required to secure receipts for each and every expenditure. Receipts signed or purportedto be signed by the ward will not be allowed as a credit to a guardian in the settlement of accounts.

6. Every guardian is charged by law to manage the estate to the best interests of the ward. Guardians mayInvest only in "legal investments" authorized by state law.

7. When the ward receives payments from the United States Veterans Administration, an account must befiled each year on the anniversary date of the appointment of the guardian.

Every other guardian shall file an account In this Court of all receipts and disbursements every two years:A receipt for each expenditure must be presented. Satisfactory proof of all balances and Investmentsmust be exhibited to the Court. ALSO REQUIRED AT TIME OF FILING THE ACCOUNT IS A BIENNIALREPORT ON THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE WARD.

8. All guardians of the person only of an adult incompetent must every two yeats as of their anniversary dateot appointment file a biennial report on the mental and physical condition of the ward.

9. Every guardian appointed pursuant to the Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act Is especially cautioned toconsult with an ahorney of the United States Veterans Ad.ministration, or with the court, before.dischargingthe duties.

10. Compensation of the guardian and attorney fees should be allowed and paid in the Guardianship, as fixedby Rule or by Order of Court.

11. When a minor ward becomes eighteen years of age, a Final account must be filed, within 30 days.

12. When the ward dies, a guardian has NO POWER THEREAFTER, and must file a Final accountimmediately.

Zr0.7

PROBATE COURT OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIOJOHN J. DONNELLY, Presiding Judge

JOHN E. CORRIGAN, Judge

IN THE MATTER OF

CASE NO.

FIDUCIARY'S ACCEPTANCE

GUARDIAN(R.C. 2111.u)

I. the undersigned, hereby accept the duties which are required of me by law, and such additional duties as are orderedby the Court having jurisdiction.

AS GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE, I WILL:

1. Make and file an inventory of the real and pen;onal estate of the ward within 3 months after my appointment.

2. Deposit funds which come into my hands In a lawful depository located within this state.

a Invest surplus funds in a lawful manner.

4. Make and file an accouM biennially, or as directed by the Court.

5. File a final account within 30 days after the guardianship is terminated.

6. Inventory any safe deposit box of the ward.

7. Preserve any and all Wills of the Ward as directed by the Court.

& Expend funds only upon written approval of the Court.

9. Make and file a guardian's report biennialiy, or as directed by the Court.

AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON, I WILL:

G Protect and control the person of my ward, and make all decisions for the ward based upon the best interest of theward.

2. Provide suitable maintenance for my ward when necessary.

3. Provide such maintenance and education for m y ward as the amount of his estate justifies if the ward is a minor andhas no father or mother, or has a father or mother who fails to maintain or educate himther.

4. Make and file a guardian's report biennially, or as directed by the Court.

5. Obey all orders and judgments of the Court pertaining to the guardianship.

If I change my address or the ward's address, I shall Immediately notity Probate Court in writing. I acknowledgethat I am subject to removal as such f'iduciary ff I fail to perform such duties. I also acknowledge that I am subject topossible penalties for improper conversion of the property which I hold as such fiduciary.

15.2 - FIDUCIARY'S ACCIVTANCE - GUARDIAN( ") 12/99

cEHrrfrEU NlaIc

7160 3901 9848 4396 4495

q INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

q ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN q OTHERq NO SUCH NUMBERI STREETq NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED

• UNABLE TO FO ^RD ^^yg1

............... .................. 1---..... n ........................... ...................... .............. ..

i 2. Article Number

^jW o ., IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINiI7160 3901 9848 439

WW¢

W^^ 3. ServlceType CERTIFIEDMAIL

^ a W ; 4. Restrioted Delivery? (Exfra Fee)t1.C a

1. Artlcle Addreased to:

Luann MitchellW2 p

^h^ A^pr^^^BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE

65 SOLrr'H FROM' STREET-5TH FIAOR, OOLUMBUS, OHIO 43215-3431

D^ y a 375 Bemoral DriveZ^= Cleveland, Ohio 44143

n -^

p

PS Form 3811, July 2001

6 4495

Mitchell PCP

BOC G&D

Domestlc Return Receipt

lciit9HfTO:$ENDER

rCOMPLETETHIS SECTION ON OELIVERY

Received by (Pleaee Print Cleedy) i a. Date of Dellvery

C. Signature

q Agentx q Addressee

D. Is dellvery address diflerenllrcm Ilem I? q YesIt YES. enter delivery address belaw: q No

'_^IProperty Maintenance - 1 AAU, INC - 375 Dalmoral Dr Richniond Iils 011 44143

,^ -,iw-

f4-10 Auditor Maint & PracessinaEl 3^ Escrow Processing

11 EscrowMaintenance:i-14l General Maintenance-IM Public Inquiry

c-i Reportsta ♦^ Set Up.E %iTreasurer Maint 8 Processing 12/30/2005

Quit ClaimDeed Ex

Real 66P77-126

LAME.INCLAME. INC375 Balmoral DrRchmond Hts OH44143

63662

"IM&te';{; `,l'mf^''etirpt%•;:':

ei17:9:ie:l

I{.i\1l 1

. STATE HEARING DECISIONCounh, Dislnc; Hearinps Section

CLEVELANDAsslatanCa Group Name

BERTHA WASHINGTONCUYAHOGAPlace Pf Heannq Iniaal Hearinp Data

CUYAHOGA CDHS 05/10/2000

AppeiUndR^-__. _

BERTHA WASHINGTON

LUANN MITCHAL, LGL.GDN.

^ F.O. BOX 08531

CLEVELAND., OH. 44108-

Date NoOu Mailed12/30/1899

Oate Received oy Locat Aqency I

04106/2000

ApGUI'Numbal!a)lPropram(s)

9542556ih^,ED

ResUteouled Postponed to Rlsenaduleo Postponed lo

Appellant Represantadon

Local Agency Represenulion

Dzle tceived DDNS04RO1200o

Date APpeal Summary Received

ODHS 4005 (Rev..9/54).

Assistance Group Number

5017512962

ReachedNed PoslponYJ to

Dale Scheduling No1 te t tbtec

04/27/2000

Notlee to Appellant

Ttlis is thc official repon of your hearing and is to inthrm You of the dccision and order in your case. All papers and materia!sintroduced al thc hearing or otherwise fded in the proceeding make up the hearing record. The hearing record will be maintained0yth.eOhio Depanmcnt of Human Services, If you would like a copy or the offieia!veeord, please lelephone the hearing supervisor a: I h e ^ - -C L E V E L A K D D i s t r i c t h e u i n g s e c t i o n a t l - 8 0 0 - 6 8 6 • ! 5 5 1 .I F f you belicvc this swte hearing docision is wrong, you may request an administrative a Ppcal by wriling to: Ohio Depilment of HurnanServices, Offmc of Legal Serviees, 30 East Broad Stroet, 31st Floor, Columbus, Ohio 4J266-0421 or FAX (614) 752•8298. 1'ourreques: should inc!ude a copy of this hearin g decision ond an explanation of whyyou think it is wrong. Your wrinen requesimust bereceived by the t)rfice of Legal Services within 15 calendar days from the datc thls decision is issued. (IJrhe lSrh doy feRa dn c•eerrdnd or holiday: rhly dradline Is e.rfended to Ihr next work doy.)

During the I 5-day administrmive appeal period you may request a frec copy or the tape recording of the hcaring by contncling thedist: icl heuings seetion. ^^ ^^ -'-..^aewas ........ ..!t you went informalion on free legal services but don't know

_t'liy¢'o"urA ro oryour local Iegal aid office, you can call the Ohio Stalc

Lcgul Scrvices Association, ioll free, at I•800•589-5888, for the local number.

ISSUES:The Appellant was a recipient of Passport Services through Westem Reserve Area Agency on A;ing(WRAAA). WRAAA proposed disenroliment on 12/17199 due to placement in a nursing facility.The guardlan requested a hearing on 12128/99, Passport inapproprtately terminated services duringthe pendency of the appeal despite the guardian's timely request for hearing. A hearing decision <vasissued 3/28/00 overruling the appeal and finding that WRAAA's 12/17/99 terFrtination of home andcorrununiqr-based waivef services due to Appellant's institutionalization was appropriate. Thatdecision was afftimed by an administrative appeal decision issued 4/27/00. The guardian argues thatthe Ae^ency should have reinstated benefits pursuant to the state hearing decision of 3/28/00 and thaLthe Appellanl should be reimbursed for her cost of care for that time frame. The second ground forappeal is based on WRAAA's refusal to accept re-erirollment forms from the guardian due to nota!ionsthat the guardian had.added to the fornis. The guardian funher argues that she was denied the right tortapply by WRAAA.

As noted ;n !he 3/28/00 State Hearing Decision;'ihe Agency improperly terminated benefits dt:rine the

Appeal(;) SUSTAINED 9942556

I

Date Issued

06121l2000Compliance 9942556

DisrriUvrion: 0ri9.nal 1o aopeaant. one Wpy to toeat aqenCy: one nopy lo diauiet Hearing seCl

(pnorocupyro apPelranr's aulllprired represenfafive, !lany, and 10 ODHS units as app/opdare.)DHS 4005 (REV.9t941

MAA

pies lo Slate Hear:nqi.

I

STATE HEARING DECISION CDNTINUATIDN

Appeal Number(s)

9942556

course of the appeal. Those benefiu should have been reinstated and the Appellant should bereimbursed for services she paid for during that period.

PROCEDURAL MATTLRS:The Guardian previously appealed the termination of PAssport benefits. A state hearing was held211/00. A'hearing decision was issued 3128/00; which overruled the appellant's appeal, but noted thatthe agency inappropriately terminatod benefits while the appeal was pending. That decision wasaffirmed uponappeal on 4/27/00. The guardian requested another hearing on 4/6/00. A hearing wasscheduled for 5/10100, notice was sent on 4I27/00.

SUMMAT2YOF PROCEEDINGS:The. Appellant was a recipient of Passport Services through Western Reserve Area Agency oh Aging(WRAAA). WR.AAA proposed disenrollment on 12/17/99 due to piaccment in a nursing faciliry.The guardi1-nrequested a hearing on 12/2$/99. Passport inappropriately terminated services duringthe pendeney of the appeal despite the guardian's timely request for.hearing. A hearing decision wasissued 3/28/00 overrultng the appeal and finding that WRAAA's 12/17/99 termination of home andcommunity-based waiver services due to Appellant's institutionalization was appropriate. Thatdecision was affirmed by an administrative appeal decision.ts (QQv terguar.dian•urg:ues-.ihat -

;_,_-_..the..Agencyshould have=reinstated beneflts putStli^f fo thc state taztng decision of 3128/00 and thatthe Appellant should be reimbursed for her cost of care for that time frame. The second ground forappeal is based on WRAAA's refusa) to accept re-enrollment forms from the guardian due to notationschat the guardian had added to the forms. The guardian further argues that she was denied the right roreapply by WRAAA.

\VFtAAA admitted that services were (enninated improperly dtiring the course of the appeal. As aresult of the'hearing WRAAA reoperied the waiver case and had a new assessment completed on2/8100. WRAAA gave the guardian a waiver packet to review, On 3/22/00 WRA.A.A contacted theGuardian regarding the retum of the waiver packet. The Guardian said she would fax the documents,but failed to do so until 3/30/00. When the,packet was retumed on 3/30/00, there were two notationsmade by the Guardian on the rvaiver forms to which WRAAA objected. First on the Responsibilitiessheet, the Guardian had added "when possible" to the statement that the Appellant would be availableto meet with her case manager on a regular basis. On.the Authorization to Release lnformation theGuardian Edded a requirement that she be notified prior WRAAA contacting any third partiesregarding the Appellant. The Guardian required that she be told the nature of the contact, the name,address and phone number of the person they intended to contact, the name of the agency or compan9 .znd the nature of the information sought. WRAAA felt that the forms as altered were unacceptable,the reassessment was expired and since the hearing decision had been issued ov4rruling the appeal,Lhey+closed out the case on 415/00. On 416/00 there was a conversation between the Guardian and\VT'^AAA on the process for reapplication. The Guardian offered to refax a clean copy of the formsbut was told it was unnecessary since a new application would be required.

Thc Guardian testified that she sent tilC.material back to WRAAA through the mail; but they were notreceived. After being contacted by WIRAAA she faxed the fonns to them with'the noted alterations.

Faqeaol7

^,pDeal Numbe^(s)-^

94^355e

STATE HEARINO DECISION CONTiNUAT1ON

The Guardian indicated that the alterations were not material alterations, but were made as a counesyto the Agency. The Appellant is out of her 1•tome for most of the'ciay, receiving therapy and would notbe avairable regularly unless an appointment was scheduled. The.Guardian also indicated that ihedoctor's office had told her that they would not release information to WR.A?.P, without the Guardian'sinvolvement which is why she added the notation to the release of informatiori form. After the 4/6I00telephone call with WRAAA, the Guardian faxed unaltered forms. These forms were retumed to her.The Guardian indicated that she was told by another WRAAA employee that a new assessment wouldnot be necessary. The final issue involves the attempt by the Guardian to reapply for waiver serviceson the Appellant's behalf. The Guardian states that when she contacted WRAAA on 4/18/00 she wasdenied the right to reapply because the intake worker indicated.there was.a notation on the computer.not to take a new application. The WRAAA representative stated that the reason that no assessment.was scheduled at the time of:the guardian's'call was'because.lt;rR:A.AA wanted to have options to o.fferthe Guardian to schedule a date and time. The WRAAA representative stated that telephone callswere made to schedule the assessment and that no contact was made. The Guardian indicated that heroffice was open during the times at issue and other business was transacted during those times.

FIh17INGS OF FACT:

Undisouted Facts:1. The Appellant was a recipient of Passport Services through Westem Reserve Area Agency on

Aging (WRAAA).2. %VR.AAA proposed disenrollment on 12/17/99 due to placement in a nursing faciliry.^. The guardian requested a hearing on 12/28/99. Passport inappropriately terminated services

during the pendency of the appeal despite the guardian's timely request for hearing.;. A hearing decision was issued 3/28/00 overruling the appeal and finding that 1VRA.AA's

12/17/99 termination of home and cotttmuqity, based watver services due to Appellant'sinstitutionalization was appropriate. That decision was affirmed by an admirustrative appealdecision issued 4/27/00.

5. WRAAA admitted that services were terminated improperly during the course of the appeal.6. As a result of the hearing WRAAA reopened the waiver case and had a new assessment

completed on 2/8/00.7. %VRAAA.gave the guardian a waiverpaIeket to review. On 3/22I0D WR.tUAA contacted the

Guardian regarding the return of the waiver packet. The Guaidian said she would fax thedocuments, but failed to do so until 3/30/00.

°. When the packet was retumed on 3/30/00, there were two notations rnade by the Guardian onthe waiver forms to which WRAAA objected. First on the Responsibilities sheet, iheGuardian had added "when possible" to the statement that the Appellant would be available to

' meet with her case manager on a regular basis. On the Authorization to Release Informationthe Guardian added a requirement that she be notified prior WRAA.A contacting any thirdpanies regarding the Appellant. The Guardian required that she be told the nature of thecontact, the name, address and phone number of the person they intended to contact, the nameof the agency or company and the nature of the.information sought.

S. wRAAA felt that the forms as altered were unacceptabte, the reasses'sment was exp'ired and

F ape 1 p(1 STATeHEARIND DECISION CDNTINVATIDN

Appeal NumCer(s}

99+255F

since the hearing decision had been issued overrpling the appeal, thef closed out the case on4/5/00.

10. On 4/6f00 there was a conversadott between the Guardian and VJRAAA on the process forreapplication. The Guardian offered to refax a clean copy of the forms but was told it wasunnecessary since a new application would be required.

Disouted Facts:1. The Guardianlestified that she sent the tnaterial back to WRAAAA through the mail, but they

were not received.2. The Guard'ian indicated that the alterations were not material alterations, but were made as a

courtesy to the Agency. The Appellant is out of her home for most of the day, receivingtherapy and would:not be avallable regulaily uhless anappoiatment was scheduled. TheGuardian also indicated that the doctor's ofScahadtold, her that-theywould not releaseinforraation to WR-A.A.A without the Guardian's involvement which is why she added thenotation io the relcase of information form.

3. The Guardian states that when she contacted WRAAA on 4/18/00 she was denied the right toreapply because the intake worker indicated there was a notation on the computer not to take anew application. The WFtAAA representative stated that the reason that no assessment wasscheduled at the time of the guardian's call was because WRA.P.?. wanted to have options tooffer the Guardian to schedule a date and timct

4. The W2AAA zepresentative stated that telephone calls were made to schedule the assessmentand that no contact was made. The Guardian indicated that her office was open during thetimes at issue and other business was transacted during those times.

CtJNCLUSIONS OF PGLTCY;

1. Ohio Admin. Code 5101:6-4-01 states that when a request for a hearing is received within (heprior notice period benefits shall not be terminated until a hearing decision is rendered.

2. Ohio Admin. Code S 101:6-4-0I further states that when benefits are reduced, suspended orterminated in violation ofthe provisions of this rule, benefits shall be.reinstated to the previouslevel.

3. Ohio Admin. Code 5101:6-4-01 requires the agency to respond to reinstatement orders byauthorizing benefits within five workdays of receipt of the order.

4. "Reinstatement of benefits to the previous level" means that benefits shaq be reinstatedretroactive to the date the benefits werc reduced, suspended or terminated.

5. Ohio Admin. Code 5101:3-31-04 provides that the application process foi the PASSPORTHCBS waiver program begins with a completed application for Medicaid and contact with thepassport administrative agency having passport program responsibility resulting inarrargernent of an assessment.

AN F.Y YSIS: . . .The Guardian requested tha+ tt:c hearing decision address Appellaiif's eligibility for services for the

STATa HEARINO DEC1510N CONTINUATION

period from her discharge from the nursing facility of 215/00 to the issuance of the hearing decision,on3/28/QO and for the period from 4/18/00 forward based on the claim that she was detued theoppor.tunity to reapply for Passport.Regarding the first period, the Appellant should have been covered for the period of the appeal andshould have received services during thtit period. Ohio Admin. Code 5101:6-4-01 -requires the agencyto reinstate benefits to the previous level, retr.oactive to the date the benefits were reduced, suspendedor terminated. WFtAAA failed to do that and instead treated the case basically as a new application,requiring all new paperwork. The Appellant should be reimbursed for the care she paid for during thisperiod.

The issue with regard to the 4/18/00 telephone contact between the Guardian and: VJRA.AA is thtsubject of sQme dispute. However; WftAAA represtntativts i>idicated that the intake worker shouid.create the screen for the assessmenrandthen callback to schedule the aCtual.assessment. It appearr;th,at thecontact meets the requiremet[ts of Ohio Admin. Code 5101;3-31•04 of contact with thepasspon administrative resulting in arrangement of an assessment. The panies attempted to arrarigethe assessment at the hearing, but were unable to do so. The panics did agree to arrange theassessment at a mutually agreed time. While the intake worker was unable to arrange the assessmentat the time of the call, the WRAAA did not refuse to take the Appellant's applicat'ton.

HEARING OF'FICER'S RECOMMENDATIONStBased upon the reasoning set forth above, I recommend that the Agency's decision be reversed andAppeal 99942556 be SUSTAIT'ED.

FIitiAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND ORDER:Finding the.hearing officer's decision to be supported by the evidence, the recommendation is adopted.Appeal 49992556 is SUSTp.INED in nart.For the peri.tid from appellant's discharge of 215/00 from the nursing facility, to the issuance of thehearing decision on 3128100, The Appellant shall be reimbursed for the care she paid for during thisperiod - COMPLIANCE IS ItEQUIItED

.A.C. Section 5101: 6-7-03 requires prompt compliance with state hearing decisions. For decisionsinvolving public assistance, coinpliance shall be achieved within 15 calendar days from the daie'thedecision is issued, but in no event later than 90 calendar days from the date of the hearing request.Compliance shall be promptly reported to the Bureau of State Hearings, ODHS, via "State HearingCompliance," ODHS 4068, accompaniedby appropriate documentation.

For the period from 4P18100 forward the actions of the VJRAAA met the requirements of Ohio Admin.Code 5101:3-31-04 and the VVRAAA did not refuse to take the Appellant's application.

,APPENDIX:Exhibit A - 3/28/00 State Hearing DecisionE:.hibit 6- 4/27/00 Administrative Appeal DecisionExhibit C - 4/6/00 Letter from WRA.AA (2 pages) ^Exhibit D- 4/6/00 Letter from Guardian (3 pages)

Page5ot7

AppEal Number(s)

S5d2556 I

Page 0 of 7 STATE HEARINO DECISION CONTINUATION

Appeal Numbet(s)

8U2556

Exhibit E - WRAAA forms with alterations (2 pages)ExlLibit F - Progress Notes ( 2 pages)Exhibii G- 11/30/991etter from WRAAAExhibit H - Timeline (2 pages)Exhibit I - Running Record Comments ( 2 pages)Exhibit J- 4/18/00 Letter from GuardianExhibit K - 4/21/00 Letter from WRAAAExhibit L - Affidavits of caregivers (2 pages)

PASSPORTIOAWESTERN RESERVE AAA925 EUCLID AVENUE, SUITE 550CLEVELAND, OH, 441151407

Date Issued: 06/21/2000

,

raNS 4059 (Rev.07/9e)

EXPLANATION OF STATE HEARING PROCEDURES

hat is a State Hearlog?fyouthiak there has been a mistake or delay on your case,

:y,ou may want to ask for a state hearing. You can ask for ahe'aiing about actions by either the state department of humanserviees or the local agency. Local agencies include the countydepartmem of human services (CDHS), the county childsupport enforcemem agency (CSEA), and agencies undercontractwith. them.

A state hearing is a meeting with you, someone from the localageacy, and-a hearing officer from the Ohio Department ofHuman Services,(ODHS). The person from the local agencyivill explain the action it has taken or wants to take on your,case. Then you will have a chance to tell why you think it Iswrong. The hearing officer will listen to you and to the localagency, and may ask questions to help bring out all the facts.The hearing officer will review the facts presented at thehearing, and recommend a decision based on whether or not therules were correctly followed in your case.

How to ask for a HearingTo ask for a hearing, call or write your local agency or writeto the Ohio Department of Human Services, State Hearings, 30East Broad Street, 31st Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0423.If you receive a notice about denying, reducing or stoppingyour assistance or services, fdl out that form and maii it toState Hearings. You may also fax your hearing request to StateHearings at (614)728-9574.

We must reeeive your hearing request witbin 90 days of thematling date of the notice, of action. However, if you receivefood stamps, you may tequest a hearing on the amount of yourfood stamps at any time during your certification period.

If someone else makes a written request for you, it mustinclude awrinen statement, signed by you, telling us thatperaon is your representative. Only you can tuake a requesfbytelephone.

Continuing Assistance or ServicesIf you receive a notice that your assistance or services will bereduced, stopped, or restricted, the action will not be takenuntii the hearing is decided If we receive your hearing requestwithin 15 days of the mailittg date on the notice.

In the food stamp.program,.your benefits wili continue onlyuntil the end of your certification period. After that you mustreapply and be found eligible.

If your assIstance or services have been changed withoutwritten notice, or if the ehange was made even though yourequested a hearing, you can call the Bureau of Stat hearings.If you aeed help doing this, eall the appropriate ODHS districtoffice,.toll free at the followingnumbers: Canton, 1-800-686-1569; Cincinna6, 1-800-686-1571, Cleveland 1-800-686-1551;

Columbus, 1-800-686-1568 and Toledo, 1-800-686-1572. Ifyou do not know which district to call, ask your local agency.

If your assistance is continuing and you lose the hearing, youmay have to pay back any benefits that you were not eligible toreceive.

The continuing assistance provisions described in this section donot apply to the child support program. If you request ahearing about child support services, your hearing request willhave no effect on your receipt of services wbile your hearing ispending.

County ConferenceAn infornud meeting with a person from the local agency maysettle the issue without the need for a state hearing.

Often this Is the quickest way to solve a problem. At thismeeting your case will be reviewed with you. If a mistake hasbeen made, It can be corrected without the need for a statehearing. .You can set up a county conference by asking yourcaseworker. If you aro-not satisfied with the results, you canstill have a state hearing.

You do not have to have a county conference to have a stateheariug. Asking for a county conference will not delay yourstate hearing.

"When wlll the Hearing be Held?After your request for a hearing is received, the bureau of statehesrings wilt send you a notice giving the date, time, and placeof the hearing. This notice will be sent to you at least 10 daysbefore the hearing. The notice also wlll tell you what to do ifyou catmot come to the hearing as scheduled.

Where are Hearings Held?Fiearings are usually held at the local agency. If you are unableto go theie, the hearing may be held some other placeconvenient to you and to the other people involved. If you wantthe hearing keld somewhere other than the local agency, besure to;tell us that on your hearing request.

Postponement of the HearingIf you cannot come to the hearing as scheduled, or if you needmore time to prepare, you can ask the hearingssection for apostponement. In the food stamp program postponement islimhed to 30 days from the date of the first scheduled hearing.In all other programs, you must have a good reason to postponethe hearittg, :,

If you do not Attend the Hearing.'Itte bttreau of state hearings will send you a dismissal notice ifyou;don't come to the hearing. If you want to continue withyourhearing.request, you must contact the hearings sectionwithin 10 days and explain why you did not come to the

WNS 4059 Page 2

hearing. The hearings section will decide whether you had agood reason. If you do not call within 10 days and show goodcause, the hearing will be dismissed and you will lose thehearing. The local agency can then go ahead with the action itwas planning to take.

If you disagree with the dismiasal; the dismissal notice will tellyou bow to ask for an administrative appeal.

present your side of the case without undue interfeience, askquestions, and bring papers or other evidence to support yourcase.

Tbe hearing will be tape recorded by the hearing officer so thatthe facts are taken down correctly. After the hearing decisionis issued, you can get a free copy of the tape by contacting thehearings section.

Before the HeadngYou may have someone (lawyer, welfare rights worker, friendor relative) go to the hearing to present your case for you. Ifyou are not going to be at the hearing, the person attending foryou must bring a written statement from you saying he or sheis your representative.

If you want legal help at the hearing, you must makearrangements before the hearing. Contact your local legal aidprogram to see if you qualify for free legal help.

If you don't know how to reach your local legal aid office,call 1-800-589-5888, toll-free, for the local number. If youwant notice of the hearing sent to your lawyer, you must givethe hearings section your lawyer's name and address.

You and your representative have the right to look at your fileand the written rules being applied to your case. If yourhearing is about work registration or employment and training,you may also look at your employment and trahting case file.You can get a free copy of any case record documents that arerelated to your hearing request. Any person acting for youmust provide a signed statement from you before looking atyour case record or getting copies of case record documents.

The local agency does not have to show you confident{alrecords, such as names of people who have given informationagainst you, records of criminal proceedings, and eettainmedical records.

Confldential records which you could not look at or questioncannot be presented at the bearing or be used by the hearingofficer in reaching a decision.

SubpoenaYou can ask the hearing authority to subpoena documents orwitnesses that would not otherwise be available and that areessential to your case. You must request the subpoena at leastfive calendar days before the date of the hearing and providethe name and the address of the person or document you wantsubpoenaed.

At the HearingYou may bring witnesses, friends, relatives, or your lawyer tohelp you present your case. Tbe hearing officer may Ilmit thenumber of witnesses allowed in the hearing at any one time ifthere is not enough room. You and your representative willhave the right to look at the evidence used at the hearing,

77te hearing officer will listen to both sides but will not makea decision at the hearing. Instead, you will receive a writtendecision in the mail, issued by the'hearing authority, a fewweeks later.

Group HearingsThe bearings section may combine several individual hearingrequests into a single group bearing, but only if there is nodisagreement about the facts of eacb case and all involve relatedissues of state or federal law or county policy. The notice toschedule your hearing will tell you if you are scheduled for agroup hearing.

You or your representative will be allowed to present your owncase iadividually and you will have the same rights at a grouphearing as you would at an individual hearing.

After the HearingYou should receive a hcaring decision within 60 days of yourbearing request if the hearing was only about food stamps, andwithin 90 days for all other programs.

If you disagree with the hearing decision, your written decisionwill tell you how to ask for an administrative appeal.

Compllance with the Hearing DecisionIf the hearing decision orders an increase In your food stamps,you should get the increase about 10 days after you get thehenring decision. If the decision orders a decrease in your foodstamps, you should get the new, smaller amount the next timeyou regularly get food stamps.

In all other programs, the agency must take the action orderedby the decision within 15 days of the date the decision is issued,but always within 90 days of your hearing request.

Contact the bureau of state hearings if you havenot promptlyreceived the bener^ts awarded by the hearing decision.

Another Action Requires Another HearingIf you receive aaother prior notice that says the local agencywants to change your assistance or services while you arewaiting for a hearing or decision, you must ask for anotherhearing if you disagree with the new action. Remember, thefadt that you are waiting for a hearing or decision will not stopanother action from being taken on your case. You must askfor another hearing on the new action.

,ase for, you. If you are not going to be at the hearing, the person attending for you must bring a written;tatement from you saying he or she Is your representative. If you want legal help at the hearing, you mustmake arrangements before the hearing. Contact your local legal aid program to see If you qualify for freelegal help. If you don't know how to reach your local legal aid office, call 1-800-589-5888, toll-free, for the localnumber. If you want notice of the hearing sent to your lawyer, you must give the hearings section yourlawyer's name and address. You and your representative have the right to look at your gle and the writtenrules being applied to your case. If your hearing is about work registration or employment and training. youmay also look at your employment and training case file. You can get a free copy of any case recorddocuments that are related to your hearing request, sometimes referred to as the "appeal summary." Anyperson acting for you must provide a signed statement from you before looking at your case record or gettingcopies of case record documents. The Iocal qgency does not have to show you confidential records, such asnames of people who have given information against you, records of criminal proceedings, and certainmedical records. Confidential records which you could not look at or question cannot be presented at thehearing or be used by the hearing officer In reaching a decision.

SubpoenaYou can ask the hearing authority to subpoena documents or witnesses that would not otherwise be availableand that are essential to your case. You must request the subpoena at least five calendar days before thedate of the hearing and provide the name and the address of the person or document you want subpoenaed.

At the HearingYou may bring witnesses, friends, relatives, or your lawyer to help you present your case. The hearing officerrnay limit tire rturnber of witnesses allowed in the hearing at any one time if there is not enough room. Youand your representative will have the right to look at the evidence used at the hearing, present your side ofthe case without undue interference, ask questions, and bring papers or other evidence to support your case.The hearing will be tape recorded by the hearing officer so that the facts are taken down correctly. After thehearing decision is Issued, you can get a free copy of the tape by contacting the hearings section. Thehearing offcer will listen to both sides but will not make a decision at the hearing. Instead, you will receive awritten decision in the mail, issued by the hearing authority, a few weeks later.

Group HearingsThe hearings section may combine several Individual hearing requests Into a single group hearing, but only ifthere is no disagreement about the facts of each case and all involve related Issues of state or federal law orcounty policy. The notice to schedule your hearing will tell you If you are scheduled for a group hearing. Youor your representative will be allowed to present your own case individually and you will have the samerights at a group hearing as you would at an individual hearing.

After the HearingYou should receive a hearing decision within 60 days of your hearing request if the hearing was only aboutfood stamps, and within 90 days for all other programs. If you disagree with the hearing decision, your writtendecision will tell you how to ask for an administrative appeal.

Compliance with the Hearing DecisionIf the hearing decision orders an increase in your food stamps, you should get the increase about 10 daysafter yoti get the hearing decision. If the decision orders a decrecse in your food stamps, you sbould get lltenew, smaller amount the next time you regularly get food stamps. In all other programs, the agency musttake the action ordered by the decision within 15 days of the date the decision is Issued, but always within 90days of your hearing request. Contact the bureau of state hearings if you have not promptly received thebenefits awarded by the hearing decision.

Another Action Requires Another HearingIf you receive another prlor notice that says the local agency wants to change your assistance or serviceswhile you are waiting for a hearing or decision, you must ask for another hearing if you disagree with thenew action. Remember, the fact that you are waiting for a hearing or decision will not stop another actionfrom being taken on your case. You must ask for another hearing on the new action.

END

SEQp 0006752 THIS SP

ODS 4002 (Rev.3/99)

Page 3 of 3

PRINT SEQ. 0000338HO'. MAA NOTICE TYPE'. HSO1N5

5101:6-7•01Pagu 4 of 4

(R) N00 11c.diun

( I) 't'hu indivldwd und nttth0rt2od reprosontativa shall bo provldeci witlt the wril.len state hearing decislortvin "Slate Hearing Decislon,° ODHS 4005, Thc docision shall provido notice of the right to and themothod of obtaiuing an adtniniatratlvo appeal. Gopios A COPY oft'ho deci,riou shall ALSO he sent tothc iocai agency aml ^v 4it i tfi.

(2) When tho hearing involvea onaof the inedieal detorinination issues listed ln paragrapit (C)(2)(11 ofrulo5161:G-6-01 of the Administrativo Code, a copy of tho decislnn shall alaa bo eent to the medicoldctcrminatlon unit,

(3) Whcn tho hearing involves action or lack ofaction by a tnanaged care plan, copios of the docIsion shatIalso be sent to the managed care plan and to the ofNce of inedlcaid, ODHS,

(! ) Hearing record

Tha.stato Itoaring docision, together with doournente introducod st the hoaring and al I papera and requests fi IcdIn the procoacling; shall constituto the exolusivo rooord. The hearing roeotd ahell be compiled and cartitiodby tho hearing authority and forwanicd to the tooal agonoy, where It ahalt bo malhtained in accordance wid,appitcable record retetition reqUiretnenta and mad'a avallable for tnvlew by the lndlvldual and authorizedrepresentativo.

(CG) Library of d6oisions

The chief of tho bureau of state hearings, ODHS, altall maintain a libraty of atl state ltearing decisions. Thedecisiona shall be avatiable forpublta lnspeetlan and copying, subJect to applioable 8isclasure safeguards.

(H) Ainding effoct

State hcaring decisions shr ll be binding nn tho agcttcy or manag'od earo plan fortho individual case for whichthe decision was renderad.

Effeclive Date:

Review Date:

CeniRcntion: - - - - - - -- - ------- _----

Date

Promulgated llnder: Itevised Code Chapter 119.Statutory Atnhority: Revised Code Sectlons 2301-35, 510115Rule Amplifies: Revised Code Soctinns 2301.35, 5101.35

Prior Rf7cctivc Ontes: 7•1-76, 6-1-80, 6-2-80, 9-19-80, l0-1-81, 5-1-82, 5-2-82, 10-1•82, 7-1-83,I I-1-83(Tcmp.),1-1•84,10-1-84(Etner.), t0-3-84(Ismer.), ( I-15-84(6tner.), 12-22-84;2•I-85(Emer.),2•4•85,5-2-85,7•30-85,4-1-87, 10-t4-88(Emer,), i2 22•88; 29-90, 10-1-91,G-1-93,6-I-97, 10-I•e7(Enter.), 12•30-97

I 390d T9SG 68d 9TZ:Xtld 1ItV(1 S91VI21t13H QNtt'13l13'10:01 60:60 M 91/80 991'oN 3113

Asslstanca Group Nama

BERTHA WASHINGTON

County

CUYAHOGARequest Date04106f2000

' STATE HEARING COMPLIANCE

Decision Date06121t2000

Abelstanoe Group Number5017512962

ODHS 4068 (Rev. 6/90)

Program Appeal Number

MED 9942556

Comptiance Dua07t05/2000

BSH Use Only

Com Ilan Approved

^( o-Compr nce A ieveo

yaa-a l -

This Is to certify that CUYAHOGA County has complied with the order of the above-referenced decision.

(Please provide a complete descdption o/the agency's comptiance actions, including the exact dates on which 6enefrtswere maited or otherwise /umished.)

I

fmportant NoUce:The local agency's compliance with the hearing dpcision must be reported by completing this form andretuming It to the Ohio Department of Human Services, Bureau oi State Hearings, P.O. Box 182825, Columbus.Ohio 43218-2825. All required authorization documents (see below), hearing notices (e.g., approval notices,denial notices and prior notices) and other documentatlon of compUanee must be attached. Return a copy of the completedform to the appropr(ate district office.

Check Authorization Documents Attached:

^ ODHS 2709 (copy) ^ ODHS 6400 (original)

^ ODHS 2112c (original) 0 ODHS 7424 (copy)

0 ODHS 2453 (copy)

Name Date

E] CDHS Computerized

^ Other

(specify)

Tiue

DfstrlbuUon: Origlnal and one copy to looal agency; one copy to aureau of State Headngs.This fonn Is authorized, and Ita completion requlred, by Chapten 6101:1.35, 6101:2-00, and 6104;4•9 of the Ohio Adminlstratlve Code. Failure torespond premp0y wlll necessitate follow-up activity by the dlstrlot dlreelor.

DHS 4068 (REV. 6/90)

Reimbursable Expenditures February 5i 2000 to March 28, 2000

2/5/00 M. Davis - file review and consultation (WCP) $ 350.002/6/00 M. Davis - nutrition consultation 150.002/7/00 Home medical equipment and supplies 1,126.00

Pulse oximeter-$600.00Bed cradle-$169.00Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor-$89.00Glucose meter-$249,00Automatic Thermometer-$19.00

Adult Day Care and Home Health Aides ($10/hr.@ 52 days @ 12 hr/day) 6,240.00Light Housekeeping (8.5 visits @ $40.00/visit) 340.00Errands (Grocery shopping, pharmacy, etc.) 27 trips @$10.00/errand) 270.00Emergency Monitoring Response System (includes 2 free consults) 6,000.00Home Delivered Meals (Lunch $6.00; Dinner $10.00) 832.00Minor Home Modifications (wheelchair accessability) 14,189.00

Stove $ 289.00RampRampElectrical

Breaker UpgradeWheelchairADA doors widenedFurrtaceLocksKitchen/BathDining Room(stack pipe/wall repair)

Transportation (medical visits)

TOTAL(Sub-Total)

400.00 (front)3,300.00 (rear)3,100.00

250..00350.00

2,250.002,200.00

350.00900.00800.00

80.00 (2 @ $40.00 p/trip)

2/6/00 to •3/24/00 :J:M >sLonergan, M.D.

TOTAL

PLAIN

80.00

29;577.00

1,950.00

$ 31,527.00

STATE OF OHIO

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

)ss}:FFIDAVIT

Now comes L. Mitchell, Guardian for Bertha L. Washington,

after first being sworn according to law, and states as follows:

1. I am the guardian of Bertha L. Washington, appointed by the

Probate Court of Cuyahoga County on March 22, 1999.

2. I have personal knowledge of the personal care provided to

Bertha Washington in the capacity of guardian.

3. I have personal knowledge of the expenses incurred by Bertha

Washington as a result of her termination from the PASSPORT 10-A

program.

4. Due to that termination, Mrs. Washington did not have home

health aides to perform personal services, run errands or perform

light house-keeping duties due to age and health constraints. I

arranged these services in my role as guardian.

5. The reimbursable expenditures for Adult Day Care and Home

Health Aides between the dates of February 5, 2000 and March 28,

2000 was $10.00 per hour at 12 hours per day for th^! 52'day

period at issue, totaling Six Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars

($6,240.00).

6. Electrical work was completed during this time totaling Three

Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($3,100.00), along with breaker

upgrade totaling Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). Faulty

fuses and an antiquated fuse box was removed following electrical

sparks and resulting burns in Mrs. Washington's home.

7. All reimbursable expenses sought by Bertha Washington were

not monies which belonged to me.

B. That a diligent search has been made to locate and produce

available receipts during this period, as previously attested to.

9. That this AFFIDAVIT is submitted in lieu of receipts which

can not be located due to the passage of almost three years.

10. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

L. MitchellGuardian for Bertha Washington

SWORN TO before me and subscribed in my presence this _ day

of September 2003.

NOTARY PUBLIC

(SEAL)

Emergency Monitoring Response System

Hardware1) Server

HP KAYAK TOWER• 1) 256 MB RAM2) 20 QB IDE DiSK3) RJ4S CABLE4) ELECTRONIC RECEIVERS5) MODEM6) RS422 CABLE

II) Client Units

I) 256MBRAM2) 20 OB IDE DISK3) R7 4S CABLE4) ELECTRONIC RECEIVERS5) MODEM6) RS422 CABLE

Software1) Install and coafigure server software

A) 10 Honrs ® $125.00 per hour2) lnstall and configure client so8ware

A) 8.5 Hours @ S95.00 per hour

Projea PlanA) Delivery to be 45-days on hardware from contract dateB) Server on line and clicnt systems flilly setnp and configured

within 72 hours of hardware being deliveredC) User training on sny new procedures required for operation

Total Cost of Project $6,000.00

Sh^wrv ^-. W^ll^PO^•^^-^1^ac^ STi^ ^o R^. Rt^

jq6b

TO:

WORK PERFORMED AT:

CONTRACTORS INVOICE

All Material is guaranteed to be as speci(led, and the above work was performed In accordance with the drawings and specifications

provlded fl4r the above work and was completed in a substantial workmanllke manner for th@ agreed sum ofA-^- _ n . - . ^ ^---"- c7CJ

Full invoice due and payable by:

In accordance with our I^'Agreement q Proposal No.

NC3822

^Dollars ($ 1),a), "o ,.ot,

>nra jr\tl^a ^^T^l^moR^ (^fl^

0^ vo - al^ ^0TO:I r ^.

DATE YO,UA,4VOFIK ORDI

WORK PERFORMED AT:

,

CONTRACTORS INVOICE

OUA BID NO.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED

0

All Materlal Is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work was performed In accordance with the drawings and specificationsprovided for the above work and was ompleted in a substantial workmanlike manneyf8r he agreed sum of

3,r^^ ^]-\jlj._. A4 ^^^t_ '^ U'^ /^ r Dollars ($ 1 W. C^C7 J.

This is a q Partial tDIFull invoice due and payable by: <<^ ,; Day

in accordance with our [^] /lgreement q Proposal

NC3822 CONTR

%/ L. l^"I_ 1/fFlr^-1 ^"iA'7 1 11l3 IJF/11 LI .i

' UV ^ ^ „ ^/^.^-iUncLccifrdcl.n^l

r5oo 00

tUr V;r r-+r,c. L WCj>rl nr.;^ ^clucll:.,uY,e+ c co +c •r..: s

----- - -------Y: <ur•1'r\C'uvc Srrv•1 ^O

i

(^+^l^urrarc^l ^al^hna^ -f .^^^Woo1_2' ^l^l•"t^ S^'U-^ppDlna nJ^rViccS '^'" [^(f(!1q

^f^Otshinr.itr, v

o

.3--0:7---A^9 '

%7'/^ ^' M l^C.^1^,^ e I

'GI/1

060z4 n nCal -^

LUANH ILi_t^'GtC ATCFARHE"4^ Al` i.AW a-ar+aGT?^itEi0IY1H C-C7^i^''T!A L LRfI^#IkGFON tkear42;oat

.oz7,.^ -PO eoxo^a+ ^,^

^:04^,0'QOL•53^: D2Fi&?'^2L06^^"'0215 '0EI00000600130`

HI^13 ^iC113^ ^T44^

^. _ ,. u^'..

LUANN MITCHELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW°^"GuaROIAN fOR SERTHA L WASHINGTON

CUUANOGi C.OUNTY PNOBAIC COI/flTP.O. BOY pg671

GLEYEtANO.ON. ulpA.

^ / . • ^rArh++n ^ L..o.nrx^--

LBLOQ7

-SS4i++3UUd5 53 S

âu Xunllnqlon N, bn.l C. ntO^'^}° Oluu ul IS

I .HUI1610160 •

CaAiD P^1tt.4w

-IMNdi MITCHELL, A'PTOaNEY AT LAW a-IvAmGUARAIAN FOR BEFkS'FFR l,'WtbSF.t{NGTO.N ma^mw

cuY GA.OQUN.M PqOflRTE CC19RT i 1 Q^P:Q.80Xo85'3i ' run.

CL`:vEUao . aHoa- 'a 5 030200

,TLm HunlYOqtpn N>•tlMxl 9soH (^LL^l^O+sI ib

r3l.'^

^.04LO 0^5 << 026b74.2106?o 003 e00000ii0001

FF

. ^ S5WA1•YN MITCHELL, AT`FO1?NEY AT LAW 6.111410G'UAJ•iDU§N FOR BEBi'HJL t. °A4'^tS#.•IIMOTaN ume^r^+a2

CUYAHQQA CqUNr1^ 09pTE cCUH7 ^

rArtONan

w

PACLee w4p-'^ O! Z-03safov-

. sL: 6C7r.LAitB 83^'=

TAq +Nnttn on Nsifmnl USnt'1140 i1q^txnda .^a za A^ 6 ) ./ ^{,;i.•.^. 1^^ +.. ^.r'G`^ lI

d_C

t^'

^ ^^ ^ .:.. ^ .: . . _

OD00014100^ 1 S .;0;266 74 2,1:06 211' 0 .4 9 5 ^^' i000+'

LUANN MITCHELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW s is++>uGUARDIAN F6R BERTHA L WASHINGTON 3^

CurAHOCnA CQUNrY AAQBAYE CAURrunrs

r d /C^EU^ Al 3 032S00y^ r

fU"

fl

0

TOO HuminaWn Wstlpnal8unk HnGnG+vnianp.pnpa]t 3 I

^ ^^^^G cQ .^...... . ^

„ t.0^, 0^ 1^ 3t. 266 74 2 106 2n' 0 i98 "'00000 1 2000+tt^k.,.•e..u.>.n.^.a=e.^.rr.... _ _ ^,r,YOS^.,^:

.;i'?WANN AiETCHHELL. ATTORNEY AT LAW o--M +10°^6UARDIRN r-OR QEATHA L WRSN)NGTQN

a^'zcu+r+woan cowrrr vpoeurs eouar ^

P.O. BOx OBSa f ^ turA,.

^^pC7 01 4 04194f?^^^

214

,- A) I (..-1-1 6 4-ViE;lS t V-1301Z

Th^ Hunllr^eW^ansS:snn! lplfN^^

amioONq/F^

4:0-41000-1

^:;z•,^• ,

DOLI.AR.ti ^ZB=

,2^' D a:jE« nfal7'00. L 3000v"

ELIA, tlaRc o44oOt7.Q2a: :.'°C14 Ar J-00523a.12 i 27

vV 'tT .. .. .: .

`^ :,' s `°a,•^ ^ . . ". a , „..:• .: . :>^{itasw Irir^a^r ;t,^'{.C7Hti111^5411+3}A ^r 1^€ffi^.^:^^r^^to^if! C1G3C^k4 1c'4 ^^j.78(R`.1^"3[^7 U4/.^8/tl^ ' 2:VJ.f3L1'

^,...^.:.v.

MEMORANDUM

f0: LIST

PROM: L. MITCHELL, GUARDIAN FOR BE1tTHA WASHINGTON

2E: REIMBURSABILE EXPENDTTURESFEBRUARY 5, 2000 TOMARCH 28, 2000

)A'I'E: AUGUST 19, 2002

k*******'******************#**#**#*********#**#*###*******#****#**#*#**#**#*#*

r'his memo will update you on payment for minor hoine mqdifications at 10821 Hampden Avenue,2leveland, Ohio 44108, personal and professional services •rendered for February 5, 2000 to March 28,2000. .

11iis is a request that you return your check(s) dated April 11, 2002 concernisg the matter referenced above. .I paid you for services rendered, and you agreed to hold that check until I could make attempts to securemoney directly frora the Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging, who should have paid your biil initially, Iam making every effort to get this matter resolved. Please return any advances paid to you.

I am still in the process of working throuih.the court system to have the Western Reserve Area Agency onAging address payment to you for the mandatory rainor home modifications, persotlal and professionalservices rendered and/or completed on behalf of Bertha Washingtorl'for her care at her home. Pursuant tothis endeavor, I am requesting you return your checks dated Apri1,11, 2000, or any advauces written againstMrs. Washington'.s guardianship account, for purposes of pending and/or future litigation; Again, I verymuch appreciate your patience and cooperation in now having the Western Reserve Area Agency on Agingaddress payment to you.

Since it has always been our position that the Western Reserve•Area Agency on Aging actually owed thesemonies and now we may be in a position to get paymetit directly from them, I very much appreciate yourpatience conceming the payment for minor home modifications at Mrs. Washington's residence, andpersonal and professional ser•vices rendered to her.

r^l The Hplntln-Otoii'co^umaus,;oni^:

II' i4764131" 11044000024i:.

ii' L 4 764 1 2ii' 1:0440000 24I:

f7H1(ol Kil `tta4 0

b2d C;rc-^

X- .-) o

HOUSE CALLS UNLIMITED, M.D.11864 Harbour Light • North Royalton, Ohio 44133

Phone e(440) 356-7899 • Fax 0 (440) 237-5547

FOR 2.4 I^A W79iS^^.yQ DATE b d v

ADDRESS

I P X Pu I S e a,xr rh, c 4cOL `^400 ^

uC..rv^C^}e^ y 9

^.e^iCJ ^u{ r'^'` {(,<•mwM.^^- rq.,

DE^UG16122 LAKESHORE BLVD.CLEVELAND, OHIO 44110

(216) 481•1286

HOUSE CALLS UNLIMITED, M.D.11864 Harbour Light • North Royalton, Ohio 44133Phone K(440) 356•7899 • Fax 0 (440) 237•5547

FOR

ADDRESS

84v

DATE Ar vc

^ eUUSkI ^V^S TeeS OZ/4/OD ^o l,,3lZY16t)

s ^^L,^< fi ^ ^300 °X ^^^.i^ •t rsr^^ ^.L, 441 (it-slk ^4.:^^ week'e.d ¢ ueNU^ " ` YS^D"

Imodii'1DRUG

16122 LAKES(iORE BLVD.CLEVELAND, OHIO 44110

(216) 481•1286

0

1950"'

STATE OF OHIO ))) SS)

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) AFFIDAVIT

)NOW COMES PATRICIA WILLIAMS, being first duly sworn according to law, who

states and deposes as follows:

1. I am personally acquainted with Bertha Washington in the capacity of an aide who provides

home health care services to her.

2. I was hired due to Bertha Washington's termination from the PASSPORT program. Due to

that termination, Mrs. Washington did not have aides to perform personal services, run errands or

perform light house-keeping duties in that she is 91 years old and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

I provide these duties as a part of my commitment to allow Mrs. Washington to remain in her

home as opposed to a nursing home facility.

3. These duties have been performed daily since February 5, 2000 and are continuing.

4. As a member of Team Washington, I provide services a minimum of two (2) hours per day,

seven (7) days per week, to Bertha Washington, up to twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7)

days per week, to Bertha Washington.

5. I was paid ten ($10.00) dollars per hour to perform these services to Bertha Washington

between February 5, 2000 and March 28, 2000, and continuing to present date.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

PATRICIA WILLIAMS

SWORN TO BEFORE ME AND SUBSCRIBED IN MY PRESENCE THIS ^^Y OFMAY 2000.

UAIAU /^11Z-4a(_NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF OHIO

ss

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGAAFFIDAVIT

NOW COMES WILLIE MAE OWENS, being first duly swom according to law, who states

and deposes as follows:

1. I am personally acquainted with Bertha Washington in the capacity of an aide who provides

home health care services to her.

2. I was hired due to Bertha Washington's termination from the PASSPORT program. Due to

that termination, Mrs. Washington did not have an aide to perform personal services, run

errands or perform light house-keeping duties in that she is 91 years old and is confined to a

wheel chair. I provide these duties as a part of my commitment to allow Mrs. Washington to

remain in her home as opposed to a nursing home facility .

3. These duties have been performed daily since February 5, 2000 and are continuing.

4. I perform two (2) hours of these services to Bertha Washington seven (7) days per week.

5. I was paid ten ($10.00) dollars per hour to perform these services between February 5, 2000

and March 28, 2000, and continuing to present date.

FURTHER AFFIANT SA TH NAUGHT.

G^,^WILLIE MAE OWENS

SWORN TO BEFORE ME AND SUBSCRIBED IN MY PRESENCE THIS Q DAY OFMAY 2000.

Drb'jN 44 / TcNOTARYPUBLIC

39

FAMICOS FOUNDATION"Seroing Families Since 1969"

1325 Ansel Road, Cleveland, OH44106 Phone: 216-791-6476 Fax: 216-791-6485

August 22, 2002

Ms. L. Mitchell, AttorneyGuardian for Bertha L. WashingtonPost Office Box 08531Cleveland, OH 44108

re: payment for minor home modifications at 10821 Hampden Avenue, Cleveland, OH44108 (or February 5, 2000 to March 28, 2000., ...

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

This letter will confirm that the Famicos Fopndati4n aompletedYhe minor 4ome modifications atthe,residence of Bertha L. Washingtoa We are seelang payment for those expeuditures that theFamicos Foundation allocated to make mandatory a) inor hon►e modifications to the:residenceowned by Mrs. Washington between Februaj+ 5, 2000 and Ivlarch 28, 2000. Our efforts in timelycompleting the minor home modifications were suooessfitl. As a result, Mrs. Washington wasable to return to her home from a rehabilitative faPility as opposed to having to be confinedpermanently in a nursing home due to inadequate, non•cqnapliant Americans with Disability Actor unsafe housing because of her multiple physical disabilities.

The invoice is as follows:

Condition Report $ 65.00Stove $ 289.00Rear Ramp (ADA porch door) 'S3,405:00Wheelchair $ 350.00Dining Room (stack pipe/wall repair) $ 450.00Job specifications (front end) s 150.00Condition Report s $5:90

54;794.00

Thank you in advance for promptly having the Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging addresspayment to the Famicos Foundation for the mandatory minor home modification completed onbehalf of Bertha Washington for her care at her home. We are returning your check dated April11, 2000 as requested.

^8

-uT c OU/pTY

V ; -10.i, I. COMMISSIONERS° Jane L. Campbell0 Jimmy DimoraQ Tim MoCormack

za

April 17, 2001

Judge CorriganProbate CourtCuyahoga County Court House1 Lakeside AvenueCleveland, OH 44113

REGARDING: Mrs. Bertha WashingtonGuardianship No. 1999GDN 14181 B

Dear Judge Corrigan:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of this agency'srecent involvement with Mrs. Bertha Washington.

On October 24, 2000, this agency received a referral allegingneglect of Mrs. Bertha Washington. The referent allegedMrs. Washington's guardian has blocked client's care atConcordia Care. Client's guardian will not allow anymedical testing be done on client without the guardian beingpresent. Client requires 24-hour supervision. Referent doesnot feel this supervision is being provided. Client has anabscessed tooth and needs antibiotics. The guardian will notwork with Concordia Care to assist the client to get theantibiotics.

Department of Senior & Adult Services, 1701 East 12th Street, Cleveland, Ohi(216) 420-6750, FAX (216) 420-6742, Ohio Relay Service (TTY) 1-800-75

This worker was unable to substantiate neglect of Mrs.Bertha Washington.

During the course of this investigation this worker felt therewas disagreement between guardian (Mrs. Mitchell) andConcordia Care regarding the method and quality ofcare/medical services to be provided to Mrs. Washington. Idid not find that Mrs. Washington was in need ofcare/services and the guardian failed to provide them for her.The vehicle Concordia Care established for them to beprovided by did not necessarily provide the care/services.

(^ ^smpc)This worker has made f^ unannounced home visits to Mrs.Bertha Washington's home. On four of these visits I foundMrs. Bertha Washington to be supervised, clean,

•appropriately dressed, and free of odor. She appeared to bereceiving excellent care. Mrs. Washington was sitting in herwheel chair. She appeared relaxed and comfortable in herhome setting. The home was clean, ordered, adequatelyfurnished and free of odor. There have been extensiverepairs to the interior and exterior of the home made by theguardian. The guardian was present for three of these visits.Mrs. Washington seems to have a very good relationshipwith her guardian.

On one of the unannounced visits the upstairs female tenantallowed me into the home. The guardian was not present. Iwas able to talk to Mrs. Washington alone regarding her carein the home and satisfaction with her guardian. Mrs.Washington was able to verbalize the fact that she feels herguardian is dependable and will do what is right by her. Onone of the unannounced home visits Mrs. Washington wasnot present in the home. She was at a senior activity.Attorney Mitchell and a potential Home Health Aide waspresent. On my last unannounced home visit to the home mySupervisor, Mr. Thomas Watson, accompanied me to the

home. He concurs that Attorney is providing good care forMrs. Washington.

It is the opinion of this worker that Attorney Mitchell hasgone well beyond the expectations of a court appointedguardian. She has taken a hand on approach to providing forthe needs and well being of Mrs. Washington. -It is becauseof this effort from Attorney Mitchell that Mrs. Washington'isno longer bed bound, plagued with bedsores, confined to herhome, and mistreated by those around her as care providers(personally and professionally). Mrs. Washington receivesexcellent care, is gotten up and dressed, is able to use herwheelchair to maneuver in her home and exit her home via aramp in the back yard. Mrs. Washington is no longer almostbald she how has.hair and clothing, and personal items tomake her life pleasant. She also attends outings and attendschurch on a regular basis. Mrs. Mitchell has made it possiblefor Mrs. Washington to. enjoy her life.

It is the recommendation of this agency that AttorneyMitchell not be removed Guardian.

Respectfully submitted:

APPROVED BY:

Thomas B. WatsSupervisor,

,L• G l1l' ^ " L

Belinda Miller-MilesSocial Worker,Adult Protective Services

Adult Protective Services

VOLUNTARY CONSENT OF AN ADULT TO

THE PROVISION OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES

1. This agreement of corysqfij.irs entgred into between the^Cuyahoga County Department of Human Services and

on {

^

16-,2?-o2CDt?^ ^ v mc/ana ^ a nu IDatel

2. ^he Adult certls't a sne^he has Zo un^ar^fy accepted the Department's offer to provide protective services toher/him, and shall cooperate with the Departiftent in this regard and inform it when such services are no longer desired.

3. The Department certifies that it has performed an investigation at the request of the Adult and has concluded thatshe/he is in need of the following protective services: (describe proposed service p/an, including dates ofcommencement and completion; specify provider, if possible)

c

Now, THEREFORE, the parties agree that the foregoing services will be provided by the Department until eitherthe Adult withdraws her/his consent or the Department decides to withdraw the services and gives 10 days noticeto the Adult.

_C If C /j7_ J (J krQ( A-1'k ZIU

(Signature of Adult) (Signature of Director or Deslgneel

106 - ^0-</a© - 67a 9

AS 05 1612463

PURPOSE OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICESINITIAL SOCIAL WORK INTERVIEW

4-u. Mlo^ c=^ e1/ - Guc-Ad,ioce 4jTo: .Q J/Z,ll ,1h cm^

Address ; 10 8^al L"pA e10'0 ^ i Q

The Cuyahoga County Department of Senior and Adult Serviceshas received a report of concern that you may be or you may havebeen abused, neglected, or exploited, and may be unable to takecare of your own needs. This means that you may need help toprotect yourself or your interests. Under Ohio law (Ohio RevisedCode 5101.60), it is the responsibility of the Cuyahoga CountyDepartment of Senior and Adult Services to investigate thisreport to determine whether or not you are safe and receivingadequate care and to offer you available services that you maywant and/or need.

Presented by: `^h• YVl 1.i^ - YGt i^^^Socid Worker

Date: / C, ` &^-a-606

5259

DSASlAPShLLer09/98Department of Senior and Adult Services, 1701 East 12th St., Cleveland, Ohio 44113

(216) 420-6750, Fax (216) 420-67421Ohio Relay Service (1TY) 1-800-750-0750

iBob Taft

Governor

S E H V 1 C E 5

30 East Broad Street • Cotumbus, Ohio 43266-0423

www. s ta te. o h. us/o dl ts

December 21, 2001

Karen Vrtunski, Asst. DirectorW estern Reserve Area Agency on Aging925 Euclid AvenueSuite 550Cleveland, Oh 441 1 5-1407

Dear Ms. Vrtunski,

Tom Hayes

Director

A state hearing decision was issued June 21, 2000, finding in favor of Ms. Bertha Washington.Ms. Luann Mitchell, Legal Guardian for Ms. Washington, ha$ reported to me that your agencyhas not yet reimbursed Ms. Washington the amount of money she paid for her care fromFebruary 5, 200 to March 28, 2000, as you were ordered to do by the state hearing decision.

I received verification frbm the County Department of Job and Family Services that an operiMedicaid eligibility span was established for the time period in question, and assumed that youroffice had complied with the decision. Pliase take whatever action is necessary to comply withthe state hearing decision, and send me verification that you have,done so.

As you know, pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code rule 5101:6-7-01 (B), the state hearingdecision is binding on the agency. I have attached the state hearing decision, and a complianceform, so that you can more easily report your compliance actions to my office.

Thank you in advance for your compliance with this state hearing decision. Please feel free tocontact me at (216) 466-2724 if you wish to discuss this pending compliance action.

Virginia Ringel, Asst. ChiefBureau of State Hearings

Enclosure

c Luann MitchellP.O. Box 08531Cleveland, Ohio 44108

An Equaf Opportunity Employer

nID

BUQKINGI-iAM, DOOLITTLE & BURROUGHS, LLPAttorneys & Counselors at Law

1375 E. 9ch Street $uite 1700 Cleveland, Ohio 44114

216.621.5300 Fax 216.621.5440 www.bdblaw.com

Dalc A. Nowak216615.7319330.252.5419 (direct (ax)dnowakQbdblaw.com

January 22, 2002

Virginia RingelAssistant ChiefBureau of State HearingsOhio Department of Job and Family Services30 East Broad StreetColumbus, OH 43266-0423

RE: Reimbursements for Services Paid on Behalf of Former Passport Consumer,Bertha Washington

4.l:onBoa R.uon

C.40toc

develand

Caiumb s

Dear Ms. Ringel:

We represent the interests of the Westem Reserve Area Agency on Aging, and recently leamedthat Ms. LuArut Mitchell, former legal guardian for Ms. Bertha Washington, reported to yotlragency that WRAAA had not yet reimbursed Ms. Washington the amount of nioney she paid forher care from Febnlary 5, 2000 to March 28, 2000, as ordered by the state hearing decision ofJune 21, 2000. I am in receipt of a copy of your letter of December 21, 2001 in this regard.

It is my understanding that WRAAA has separately responded to yotlr letter of December 21,2001 with a series of enclosures documenting WRAAA's continuing efforts to comply with theorder of 6-21-00, as written.

As a matter of pure legal theory, all administrative agencies, and, indeed, all judicial tribunals,have inherent jurisdiction to entertain an application for rehearing or to reopen a matter so as toallow the agency to exercise its inherent authority to clarify, modifybr change an order to meetchan;ed conditions, or to do justice in the light of newly discovered evidence, or to correct anorder which would not have been made if certain facts later discovered had then been known toexist. Such an application to reopen does not, itself, create a new proceeding but merelyconstitutes another step in the proceeding in which the initial determination was made. We areunaware of any reasons why the State Hearing Board would not have retained jurisdiction toreopen a niatter, such as the matter involving Bertha Washington, where the order of June 21,2000, itself, did not specify how WRAAA should proceed if Ms. Washington's guardian, Ms.

Ms. Virginia RingelRE: Ms. Bertha WashingtonPage 2

Mitchell, later refused to provide the information necessary to enable WRAAA to facilitate thereimbursement process. It promotes the interests ofjustice to reopen a matter to address changedconditions, such as Ms. Mitchell's post-hearing refusal to identify providers so that herexpenditures could be evaluated under the Ohio Administrative Code. We are advised by theOhio Department of Aging, and, indeed, our own review confirms that the Ohi6 AdministrativeCode, inter alia, prohibits reimbursements to non-PASSPORT providers, reimbursements fornon-PASSPORT services, and reimbursements for services outside the "plan of care" during thetime in question.

To the extent the State Hearing Board is possessed of inherent jyrisdiction to reopen a matter toclarify, modify or change a prior order to meet changed conditions, please treat this as a formalrequest that the Bureau of State Hearings reopen this tnatter in order that a hearing officer mightclarify how WRAAA should proceed in its continuing effort to facilitate the reimbursementprocess and allow PASSPORT providers, in tum, to reimburse Ms. Mitchell or Ms,lk'ashington's successor guardian.

ThariJ< you.

Very tntly yours,

^-,W^^ale A. Nowak

DA;`i/jej«Cl? 138754_I..

Cs^ ( t ^(22^t^^

^ l01. ?^d[72IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

PROBATE DIVISIONCUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

L. MITCHELL, GUARDIAN FOR,BERTHA L. WASHINGTON(AN INCOMPETENT),

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO. 2002 ADV 0059296

JUDGE JOHN E. CORRIGANMAGISTRATE CHARLES T. BROWN

EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'SWESTERN RESERVE AREA AGENCY ) ATTORNEYS' FEESON AGING,

Defendant,

SERVICES

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

02/26/02 " Nowak Discussion with Karen Vrtunski. 0.10 17.00`^.

02/26/02 Nowak Check Probate Court docket; instruction to docketclerk; telephone call, review Complaint, andexhibits.

0.40 68.00

03/01/02 Nowak Discussion of new suit with Gerald Chattman. 0.10 17.00

03/01/02 Nowak Letter to Client. 1.00 170.00

03/04/02 Nowak Legal research; Motion to Dismiss. 1.30 221.00

03/05/02 Nowak Instructions to paralegal. 0.10 17.00

03/06/02 Gregus Conduct online case law research to obtain copiesof [redacted].

0.30 28.50

03/07/02 Nowak Call to Karen Vrtunski; return call. 0.10 17.00

03/11/02 Nowak Research motion to dismiss I.OC) 170.00

03/11/02 Nowak Further research. 0,80 136.00

DATE' ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

03/11/02 Nowak Motion to dismiss; further research; select exhibitsand case law; telephone call to Karen Vrtunski;prohibition research re: res judicata.

3.50 595.00

03/12/02 Gregus Perform online case law research to shepardize thecases of [redacted] and obtain copies of positivecases cited/mentioned. Preparation memo toAttorney Nowak regarding results of research.

0.50 47.50

03/13/02 Nowak Motion to dismiss. 2.40 408.00

03/14/02 Nowak Motion to dismiss. 2.00 340.00

03/15/02 Nowak Meet with Gerald Chathnan; research. 0.50 85.00

03/18/02 Nowak Research; modify motion; exhibits. 3.50 595.00

03/19/02 Nowak Call Karen Vrtunski. 0.10 17.00

03/19/02 Nowak Prepare motions. 0.70 119.00

03/19/02 Nowak Final changes to motion. 1.20 204.00

03/20/02 Nowak Amend Notice of Deposition; Discussion withKaren Vrtunsld.

0.20 34.00

03/21/02 Nowak Revise affidavit. 0.20 34.00

03/21/02 Nowak Prepare; discussion with Karen Vrtunski; meetKaren.

0.80 136.00

03/21/02 Nowak Instruction to paralegal re: shepardizing, etc. 1.50 255.00

03/21/02 Nowak Review fax; discussion with Karen Vrtunski;instruction to secretary.

0.40 68.00

03/21/02 Nowak Review motion; draft affidavit. 0.70 119.00

03/21/02 Gregus Conduct online research of cases cited inDefendant's Motion to Dismiss for [redacted].Prepared Memo to Attorney Nowak regardingresults of online research.

1.30 123.50

03/22/02 Nowak Call courier; Discussion with Karen Vrtunski;Draft affidavit.

0.40 68.00

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

03/22/02 Nowak Discussion of frivolous conduct motion withRonald Wayne.

0.20 34.00

03/22/02 Nowak Revise affidavit; Discussion with Karen Vrtunski;execution of affidavit; prepare.

0.70 119.00

03/26/02 Nowak Discussion with Philly Insurance; instruction tosecretary.

0.40 68.00

04/04/02 Nowak Discuss depo with Karen Vrtunski. 0.10 17.00

04/04/02 Nowak Instrnction to secretary re: faxing notice of depo toLuAnn Mitchell.

0.10 17.00

04/04/02 Nowak Prepare for LuAnn Mitchell deposition. 2.10 357.00

'04/05/02 Nowak Attempted depo of LuAnn Mitchell. 0.50 85.00

04/05/02 Nowak Prepare Motion to Compel. 1.80 306.00

04/09/02 Nowak Research; edit motion. 1.00 170.00

04/11/02 Nowak Final changes. 0.20 34.00

04/12/02 Nowak rnstruction to docket re: hearing date. 0.20 34.00

04/12/02 Nowak Investigate status. 0,20 34.00

04/12/02 Nowak Prepare for motion hearing; notice; etc. 0.30 51.00

04/15/02 Nowak Prepare for and attend hearing in Probate Court. 2.00 340.00

04/16/02 Wayne Consult with Dale A. Nowak regardingguardianship issues.

0.30 67.50

04/16/02 Nowak Discussion with Ron Wayne re: probateprocedures and [redacted]; discussion with KarenVrtunski; discussion with Larry Friedlander re:[redacted].

1.00 170.00

04/16/02 Nowak Research [redacted] issue re: motion for protectiveorder; prepare notice of depo.

1.50 255.00

04/16/02 Nowak Discussion of strategy with Gerald Chattman. 0.30 51.00

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

04/17/02 Nowak Prepare brief in opposition to motion for protectiveorder.

0.50 85.00

04/17/02 Nowak Prepare brief in opposition to motion. 0.50 85.00

04/18/02 Nowak Edit brief; add research. 1.40 238.00

04/19/02 Nowak Check probate docket via internet, etc. 0.20 34.00

04/22/02 Nowak Attempt to check probate docket. 0.10 17.00

04/22/02 Nowak Review outline for additional deposition questions;check probate docket for motion.

0.50 85.00

04/22/02 Nowak Attend attempted depo. 0.20 34.00

04/22/02 • Nowak Prepare motion for sanctions; letter and new noticeto LuAnn Mitchell; review file.

1.00 170.00

04/22/02 Nowak Review motion to quash; legal research; modifybrief in opposition.

2.50 425.00

04/22/02 Wilkins Westlaw Research per Dale Nowak. 1.00 95.00

04/23/02 Nowak Instructions to docket clerk/review info. 0.20 34.00

04/23/02 Nowak Review correspondences from LuAnn Mitchell;final edits of brief and motion; discuss status withKaren Vrtunsld.

1,30 221.00

04/23/02 Nowak Edits to brief. 0.30 51.00

04/23/02 Nowak Review pretrial notice; call to client. 0.20 34.00

04/29/02 Nowak Prepare for and attend probate hearing; discussionwith Karen Vrtunski.

2.00 340.00

04/29/02 Nowak Review Civil rules; prepare motion to strike. 0.90 153.00

04/29/02 Nowak Proof and edit motion to strike. 0.20 34.00

04/30/02 Nowak Finalize Motion to Strike. 0.10 17.00

05/03/02 Nowak Telephone call with docket courier. 0.10 17.00

05/03/02 Nowak Preparation: check intemet docket re; statusdiscovery order.

0.10 17.00

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

05/06/02 Nowak Prepare: docket check via intemet. 0.10 17.00

05/08/02 Nowak Check probate docket for discovery order. 0.10 17.00

05/09/02 Nowak Preparation - check docket status. 0.10 17.00

05/13/02 Nowak Review discovery order from Probate Court;facsimile to Karen; notify court reporter.

0.20 34.00

05/24/02 Nowak Legal research and preparation - discuss withGerald Chattman - motion to strike and imposesanctions,

1.30 221.00

05/28/02 Nowak Telephone call to discuss status of litigation withGerald Chattman.

0.10 17.00

05/28/02 Nowak Telephone call to discuss status of litigation withKaren V.

0.10 17.00

05/28/02 Nowak Prepare brief in opposition to motion in limine;Motion to show cause; Motion for monetatysanctions.

1.70 289.00

05/29/02 Nowak Instructions to docket clerk; finalize motions. 1.00 170.00

05/30/02 Nowak Review court docket via internet; prepare motionto reset hearing; modify brief.

0.60 102.00

05/30/02 Nowak Finalize Motion to Strike, Motion for Sanctionsand Motion to Compel.

0.20 34.00

05/30/02 Nowak Instructions to secretary; prepare exhibits;instructions to docket clerk.

0.30 51.00

05/30/02 Nowak Contact with Probate Court. 0.10 17.00

05/31/02 Nowak Discuss status with Gerald Chattman and strategy. 0.20 34.00

06/03/02 Nowak Telephone call with Karen V. regarding status. 0.10 17.00

06/05/02 Nowak Call to Court; discuss status with Gerry Chattman;review docket.

0.30 51.00

06/06/02 Nowak Prepare letter to magistrate regarding hearingschedule.

0.10 17.00

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES

06/12/02 Nowak Preparation - instruction to paralegal regardingevidence for attorney fee hearing.

06/12/02 Nowak Telephone call to Karen V. regarding newdeposition date; instruction to secretary.

06/12/02 Wilkins Meeting with DAN regarding Attorney's feesexhibit.

06/12/02 Wilkins Discussion with Amy Kerr regarding attomey fees.

06/13/02 Wilkins Prepare Billing Summary for Dale Nowak.

06/14/02 Nowak Prepare evidence regarding attorney fees forhearing; instructions to paralegal.

06/14/02 Nowak Preparation - New Notice of Deposition.

06/17/02 Nowak Return call to Court.

06/18/02 Nowak Instructions to paralegal; prepare for attorneys feeshearing; review Code of ProfessionalResponsibility; prepare attorneys' fees; prepare andmark exbibits; prepare outline for hearing; meetwith Karen; attend hearing.

06/19/02 Nowak Investigation; consultation with Gerald B.Chattrnan regarding strategy; contact with ProbateCourt; prepare Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum.

06/20/02 Nowak Call court reporter; order transcripts; prepare briefin opposition to Rule 11 motion; fax order fortranscripts; prepare Defendant's discovery; checknew hearing schedule via intemet; edit brief inopposition; select and mark exhibits; final edit;edit discovery requests.

SUBTOTAL PRIOR TO DISMISSAL:

07/03/02 Nowak Prepare letter to Luann Mitchell.

07/11/02 Paul Conference G. Chattman, D. Nowak re: Motion forFrivolous Conduct.

HOURS VALUE

0.10 17.00

0.10 17.00

0.20 19.00

0.30 28.50

0.80 76.00

0.20 34.00

0.10 17.00

0.10 17.00

3.70 629.00

1.20 204.00

3.10 527.00

$11 ,212.50

0.10 17.00

0.30 75.00

• DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

07/11/02 Nowak

07/12/02 Nowak

07/15/02 Nowak

07/16102 Nowak

07/17/02 Nowak

07/18/02 Nowak

.07/24/02 Nowak

07/25/02 Nowak

07/26/02 Nowak

Discussion regarding motion for fees, strategy withDouglas Paul and Gerald Chattman; reviewfrivolous conduct statute; telephone call to KarenVrtunski.

Research cases and 2323.51; draft motion; addcaselaw; review Court docket; instructions todocket clerk; edit motion; notice of depo.

Final proofread and edits to motion; instructions todocket clerk.

Instructions to secretary regarding exhibits andfiling; discussion with Karen Vrtunski; on-lineinvestigation.

Prepare Amended Notice of Deposition and letterto Luann Mitchell; telephone call to court reporter;prepare letter to court reporter.

Attention to letter to court reporter; instractions todocket clerk.

Check court docket via internet; message forKaren Vrtunski.

Investigate at Probate Court; review files;inventory department; voucher department;telephone call to court reporter; check ProbateDockets via intemet; review; fax to Karen; checkdocket; review fax from Karen; discussion withKaren; prepare for deposition with new evidence.

Meet with Karen Vrtunski to prepare fordeposition; attempted deposition of Mitchell;coutact with Probate Court; prepare letter toMitchell, motion for sanctions and to compeldiscovery; investigate location of bank account;discussion with Huntington regarding subpoena;telephone call to Karen; edit motion; compute fees.

0.50 85.00

5.40 918.00

0.50 85.00

0.40 68.00

0.20 34.00

0.10 17.00

0.20 34.00

5.60 952.00

3.20 544.00

. DATE ' ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

07/29/02 Nowak Check Probate Docket via lnternet; subpoenapreparation for Huntington National Bank;instructions to secretary; instructions to docketclerk regarding transcript; prepare letter toHuntington Bank.

0.80 136.00

07/30/02 Nowak Modify letter to Huntington; letter to LuannMitchell; finalize motion; assemble exhibits;finalize letter to Mitchell, etc.

0.50 85.00

07/31/02 Nowak Instructions to docket clerk. 0.10 17:00

08/01/02 Chattman Review Washington Motion and conference DaleNowak regarding same.

0.80 140.00

08/01/02 Nowak Review transcript. 0.30 51.00

08/01/02 Nowak Telephone Conference with Huntington Bank.. 0.20 34.00

08/01/02 Nowak Check probate docket status; discuss GBC. 0.10 17.00

08/09/02 Nowak Letter to Mitchell re: notice of hearing. 0.10 17.00

08/09/02 Nowak Preliniinary review checks and bank statements 1.50 255.00

08/09/02 Nowak Further review of cancelled checks. 0.30 51.00

08/12/02 Nowak Attention to notice to Mitchell re: 9/26 hearing;instr. to secretary.

0,10 17.00

08/13/02 Nowak Prepare motion to continue hearing upon postjudgment motion for attorney's fees.

0.20 34.00

08/19/02 Nowak Amend and edit motion to continue; review file. 0.20 34.00

08/19/02 Nowak Review letter from Mitchell; letter to Mitchell; callKaren; call court reporter.

0.30 51.00

08/20/02 Nowak Telephone conference with Huntington Bank; callKaren V.; call Megan re: motion.

0,40 68.00

08/20/02 Nowak Motion for continuance/Judgment entry; callKaren; select exhibits; instr. to docket clerk.

0.50 85.00

08/20/02 Nowak Call court reporter. 0.10 17.00

. , ,DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

08/21/02 Nowak Appear at Probate Court to confirm court actionupon motion for continuance; wait briefly fornotice of ruling; call court reporter; instructionsregarding exhibits; discussion with Karenregarding Ringle letter; farther review bankrecords; analysis; prepare for hearing.

08/22/02 Nowak Instructions to copy service; exhibit preparation;organize and prepare for hearing; attend probatehearing; travel.

08/23/02 Nowak Prepare brief in opposition to motion fbr attorney'sfees; prepare exhibit; organize and unpackmaterials from hearing.

.08/26/02 Nowak Telephone conversation with court reporterregarding transcript.

08/27/02 Nowak Review Karen Vrtunski's fax; attention to motionfor continuance; insttuctions to secretary;proofread and edit brief in opposition to Plaintiffsmotion for attorney's fees; instructions to docketclerk.

08/29/02 Nowak Review otder; consider appeal options; call KarenVrtuuski; call Gerald Chattman.

08/30/02 Nowak Outline research assignment; letter to Mitchellregarding notice of filing of deposition.

08/30/02 Craig Discuss case background and receive researchassignrnent from Attorney Nowak.

09/03/02 Nowak Discuss research assignment [redacted] with MarkCraig.

09/03/02 Craig Research [redacted].

09/04/02 Nowak Message from court reporter; call KellyLinkowski.

09/05/02 Nowak Telephone conversation with Karen Vrtunski.

09/09/02 Nowak Attention to [redacted] issues.

09/11/02 Nowak Instructions to secretary regardingtransmittal/notice/etc.

4.20 714.00

5.80 986.00

1.70 289.00

0.10 17.00

0.40 68.00

0.40 68.00

0.50 85.00

0.40 58.00

0.20 34.00

3.30 478.50

0.20 34.00

0.20 34.00

0.10 17.00

0.10 17.00

.. ,DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

09/19/02 Nowak Review letter; discussion with Karen Vrtunski,Gerald Chattman.

0.20 34.00

09/20/02 Chattman Conference D, Nowak - (Washington Litigation). 0.50 87.50

09/20/02 Nowak Telephone discussion regarding strategy withKaren Vrtunski; discussion with Gerald Chattmanregarding Ringel issues, etc.; prepare motion forclarification.

1.20 204.00

09/23/02 Nowak Carefully review transcript; edit motion forclarification; review Mitchell correspondence;correspondence to Virginia Ringel.

2.80 476.00

09/24/02 Nowak Call court reporter regarding 9-26-02 hearing; editletter; research subpoena power; select enclosures;call [redacted]; mark exhibit,

1.20 204.00

09/24/02 Nowak Call court reporter re: 9/26 hearing. 0.10 17.00

09/25/02 Nowak Review correspondence from Probate Court;contact with Probate Court re: hearing notice;telephone Karen Vrtunski; discussion with GeraldChattman preparation.

1.20 204.00

09/26/02 Nowak Prepare for hearing. 1.70 289.00

09/26/02 Nowak Attend Probate Court hearings 2.10 357.00

09/26/02 Chattman Review letter to [redacted] and Conference D.Nowak regarding Same.

1.00 175.00

09/27/02 Nowak Telephorie discussion with Court Reporter re:spellings of names; Mitchell's address, phonenumber, etc.

.20 34.00

09/30/02 Nowak Review transcript; instruction to copy service;instruction to secretary re: docket clerk.

.20 34.00

10/14/02 Nowak Check Probate docket for ruling. 0.10 17.00

10/23/02 Nowak Check status of court docket for ruling via intemet. 0.10 17.00

10/23/02 Nowak Review Motion for Summary Judgment of Dr.Cook.

0.10 17.00

10/25/02 Nowak Research [redacted], 1.00 170.00

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

10/25/02 Nowak Discussion with GBC; modify letter to [redacted]. 0.80 136.00

11/08/02 Nowak Check Probate docket for ruling on-line. 0.10 17.00

11/15/02 Nowak Review letter from [redacted]; response. 0.20 34.00

01/06/03 Nowak Review magistrate's order; e-mail Mary; letter toKaren Vrtunski.

0.20 35.00

01/14/03 Nowak Call Karen re: deposition; instructions to Mary. 0.10 17.50

01/14/03 Nowak Attention to deposition notice. 0.10 17.50

01/14/03 Nowak Review status; instructions to secretary; contactwith Probate Court; check civil rules.

0.40 70.00

01/14/03 Nowak Check intemet docket re: prior discovery ruling;draft motion to strike; instructions to secretary.

0.60 105.00

01/15/03 Nowak Instructions to docket clerk; edit mofion;instructions to secretary.

0.30 52.50

01/15/03 Nowak Proofread motion; locate exhibits for motion tostrike; instructions to secretary.

0.30 52.50

01/31/03 Chattman Conference D. Nowak - Bertha Washington Case. 0.20 36.00

02/06/03 Nowak Review amended probate order. 0.10 17.50

02/26/03 Nowak Schedule court reporter for hearing. 0.10 17.50

03/04/03 Nowak Discuss upcoming hearing/possible settlementwith Karen Vrtanski.

0.20 35.00

03/05/03 Nowak Prepare for hearing. 0.90 . 157.50

03/05/03 Nowak Attend probate hearing; update GBC on status. 2.70 472.50

03/07/03 Nowak Discuss audio/video options capability anddeposition date with court reporter; call KarenVrtunski re: deposition date.

0.20 35.00

03/10/03 Nowak Review letter of [redacted]. 0.10 17.50

03/10/03 Nowak Review ruling; letter to Karen Vrtunski. 0.10 17.50

i

' D'ATE ` ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

03/11/03 Nowak Discussion with Karen re: deposition exhibits.

03/12/03 Nowak Prepare notice of deposition.

03/13/03 Nowak Review new fax from Karen Vrtunski; copydeposition exhibits; discussion with KarenVrtunski.

0.20 35.00

0.20 35.00

0.40 70,00

03/24/03 Nowak Prepare for deposition. 3.20 560.00

03/24/03 Nowak Depo preparation. 0.70 122.50

03/25/03 Nowak Prepare fnrther exhibits; attend deposition of 3.50 612.50Luann Mitchell; travel..

03/26/03 Chattman Conference D. Nowak - litigation update. 0.50 90.00

03/26/03 Nowak Update GBC re: status. 0.20 35.00

03/26/03 Nowak Call Attorney Charles Patton. 0.10 17.50

03/26/03 Nowak Discussion with court reporter Laura Ware. 0.20 35.00

03/26/03 Nowak Letter to Attorney Patton. 0.20 35.00

03/26/03 Nowak Organize file post depo. 0.40 70.00

03/27/03 Nowak Review transcript; discussion with Laura Ware; 1.00 175.00letter to Judge Corrigan.

03/31/03 Nowak Discussion with Laura Ware; discussion with 0.20 35.00Karen Vrtunski; fax to Karen Vrtunski.

04/01/03 Nowak Review fax; call Karen Vrtunski re: state hearing. 0.10 17.50

04/01/03 Nowak Discussion with Charles Patton; fax to Mr. Patton. 0.40 70.00

04/02/03 Nowak Discuss status of possible settlement proposal with 0.20 35.00Karen Vrtunski.

04/10/03 Nowak Prepare Motiori to Show Cause. 0.20 35.00

04/10/03 Nowak Edit Motion to Show Cause. 0.10 17.50

04/10/03 Nowak Instrnction to secretary re: service, filing, etc.; final 0.10 17.50proofread of motion.

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

04/11/03 Nowak Check status of docket. 0.10 17.50

04/16/03 Nowak Check Probate docket on line; call Laura Ware,contact with Probate Court; call Karen.

0.20 35.00

04/17/03 Nowak Contact with Probate Court for hearing date; letterto Charles Patton.

0.20 35.00

05/07/03 Wayne Telephone call Dale Nowak [redacted]. 0.10 22.50

05/07/03 Nowak Prepare time summary for show cause hearing. 0.20 35.00

05/07/03 Nowak Prepare for hearing; discuss with Ron Wayne. 0.50 87.50

05/07/03 Nowak Attend Probate contempt hearing. 1.80 315.00

05/12/03 Chattman Review Court Order on Washington; conferenceDale Nowak.

0.20 36.00

05/12/03 Nowak Review Order; discussion with GBC; call courtreporter for removal hearing.

0.20 35.00

05/21/03 Chattman Conference D. Nowak regarding court hearing. 0.70 126.00

05/21/03 Nowak Prepare for and attend probate hearing; meetingwith Gerald B. Chattinan post hearing.

2.80 490.00

05/21/03 Nowak E-mail Joel Mirman; discussion with courtreporter Kelly.

0.30 52.50

05/22/03 Chattman Conference D. Nowak - file review andpreparation for [redacted].

1.00 180.00

05/22/03 Nowak Review e-mail response from Joel Mirman. 0.20 35.00

05/23/03 Chattman Review [redacted] and response to same. 0.30 54.00

05/23/03 Nowak Prepare, review and revise post-hearing brief. 3.90 682.50

06/02/03 Nowak Review transcript; instructions to secretary. 0.60 105.00

06/17/03 Nowak Discussion with GBC; check on-line docket. 0.20 35.00

06/17/03 Nowak Prepare Motion to Strike. 0.20 35.00

06/17/03 Nowak Travel to Probate Court; review brief filed byMitchell and exhibits.

1.10 192.50

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

06/17/03 Nowak Discussion with GBC; prepare Motion to ShowCause; review docket fiirther.

1.00 175.00

06/19/03 Nowak Check docket on-line; discuss status with KarenVrtunski.

0.20 35.00

06/24/03 Nowak Review document from Luann Mitchell; draftmotion to strike; contact with Probate Court.

0.40 70.00

07/02/03 Nowak Check status of docket on-line; call KarenVrtunski; call court reporter.

0.30 52.50

07/07/03 Nowak Attention to deposition notice. 0.20 35.00

07/30/03 Nowak Gather documents for deposition preparation;review; exhibits; discussion with secretary; contactwith Probate Court; call Attomey Charles Patton;letter to Attomey Charles Patton; instruction tosecretary; call for Karen Vrtnnski; advise GBC.

1.90 332.50

07/31/03 Nowak Call Marty M.; discussion with GBC; attempt toreach Karen Vrtunski; attempt to meet KarenVrhinsld.

0.50 87.50

08/06/03 Nowak Call Lyndhurst Municipal Court; discussion withRichmond Heights Prosecutor; call [redacted].

0.60 105.00

08/06/03 Nowak Contact with Probate Court; call Attomey Patton'soffice and pager.

0.20 35.00

08/06/03 Nowak Discussion with Bailiff re: transcript; call courtreporter.

0.30 52.50

08/07/03 Nowak Discuss transcription of partial Lyndhurstproceeding with court reporter.

0.10 17.50

08/07/03 Nowak Discussion with Charles Patton; contact withProbate Court.

0.10 17.50

08/07/03 Nowak Discussion with Charles Patton re: new schedule. 0.10 17.50

08/08/03 Nowak Discussion with Laura Ware re: LyndhurstTranscript.

0.10 17.50

08/13/03 Nowak Discussion with [redacted] re: other cases ofMitchell.

0.50 87.50

DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

08/20/03 Nowak Call Patton's office; stop at Probate Court to setnew dates; call Patton's office; call KarenVrtunski.

0.30 52.50

08/21/03 Nowak Letter to AttomeyPatton re: new dates. 0.10 17.50

08/22/03 Nowak Discussioin with [redacted] re: Mitchell's attemptto charge her for the same computer.

0.50 87.50

08/29/03 Nowak Letter to Judge Corrigan; call court reporter. 0.10 17.50

09/03/03 Nowak Prepare and attend deposition at Probate Court;review Municipal Court transcript; discussion withKaren; discuss settlement issues with Court.

11.10 1,942.50

09/05/03 Nowak Update GBC re: status; call Karen Vrtunski. 0.30 52.50

09/09/03 Nowak Review recent decision re: 2323.51. 0.30 52.50

09/11/03 Nowak Discussion with [redacted]. 0.20 35.00

09/16/03 Nowak Call Attomey Patton re: documents. 0.10 17.50

09/17/03 Nowak E-mail exchange with court reporter; locateexhibit; instruction to secretary.

0.10 17.50

09/17/03 Nowak Letter to Attomey Patton; reduce Patton phonemessage to writing; call FAMICOS.

0.60 105.00

09/18/03 Nowak Discussion with Charles Patton. 0.10 17.50

09/18/03 Nowak Call from Sharon; discussion with Court[redacted].

0.80 140.00

09/19/03 Nowak Proof and edit motion. 0.30 52.50

09/22/03 Nowak Attention to transcript and exhibits filing. 0.10 17.50

09/24/03 Nowak Duces tecum; discussion with Maay re: subpoenas. 0.50 87.50

09/24/03 Nowak Edit notices ofdeposition; call court reporter, 0.60 105.00

09/25/03 Nowak Retum call to Attomey Weiss; call Laura Ware. 0.10 17.50

09/25/03 Nowak Discussion with Joe Weiss; discussion withClaude Banks.

0.20 35.00

' DATE ATTORNEY SERVICES HOURS VALUE

09/25/03 Nowak

09/26/03 Nowak

09/29/03 Nowak

09/30/03 Nowak

09/30/03 Nowak

10/01/03 Male

Discussion with Joe Weiss. 0.10 17.50

Update GBC. 0.20 35.00

Discussion with Mary; call Justina, etc. 0.20 35.00

Call Sharon Leggett; call court reporter; discuss 2.00 350.00deposition with Claude Banks; discuss subpoenaand records with Teresa Erelenbach; discussionwith Probate Court; instruotion to Mary;discussion with Justina; discussion with John A. atFamicos; project instructions to 7an Male.

Discuss strategy and status with GBC; update 0.40 70.00Karen Vrtunski on new developments.

Preparing Attomey Fee summary. 6.50 617.50

SUBTOTAL PRIOR TO DISMISSAL: $11,212.50

SUBTOTAL POST - JUDGMENT MOTION: $20,375.50

GRAND TOTAL: $31.588.00

SUMMARY

ATTORNEYGregus, Robyn

HOURS2.10

RATE95.00 •

Wayne, Ronald F. A0 225.00Nowak, Dale A. 112.20 170.00Wilidns, Amy L. 2.30 95.00Paul, Douglas J. .30 250.00Chattman, Gerald B. 2.30 175.00Craig, Mark F. 3.70 145.00Chattman, Gerald B. 2.90 180.00 (increase 2003)Nowak, Dale A. 56.30 175.00 (increase 2003)Male, Janice R. 6.50 95.00

AMOUNT199.5090.00

19,074.00218.50

75.00402.50536.50522.00

9,852.50617.50

.

EXPENSES

Research $ 199.82Deposition Attendance and Transcripts 3638.35Parking 60.00FedEx 145.87Filing Fee 8.75Copies 4.00Witness Fees 48.00

TOTAL EXPENSES: $ 104.79

Respectfully submitted,

Dale A. Nowak (#001-4763)One Cleveland Center - Suite 17001375 East 90' StreetCleveland, Ohio 44114-1724E-Mail: dnowak(a),bdblaw.comP: (216) 615-7319 F: (216) 621-5419Attorneyfor Western ReserveAreaAgency on Aging

A copy of the foregoing Evidgpostage prepaid, this 6th day of Oc

LuAnn Mitchell, p}d-seP.O. Box 085Clevelan H 44108Cou potnted Guardian for

tha L. Washington

of Defendant's /Kttorneys' Fees was served by regular U. S,,Mail,2003, upon the folJ6wing:

aCL2:193365 L,

PROBATE COURT OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIOJOHN J. DONNELLY, Presiding Judge

JOHN E. CORRIGAN, JudgeINVESTIGATOR'S REPORT ON GUARDIANSHIP

(R.C 2111.021)GENERAL INFORMATION

(TO BE COMPLETED BY COUNSEL/APPLICANT)

IN THE MATTER OF GUARDIANSHIP: Bertha Washington

CASE NO.: 1998 GDN 0014181

Prospective ward's age: 93 Residence: 10821 HamdenCleveland, Ohio 44108

ADDENDUM

REMARKS: On February 26, 2002, the investigator observed that Attorney Luann Mitchell waspresent at the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County on another matter.The investigator spoke with her face-to-face to inform her that the investigator received a referralregarding the respondent.The investigator told Attorney Mitchell that the investigator wanted to conduct a home visit assoon as possible to assess the allegations.Attorney Mitchell agreed and the investigator conducted the home visit on February 26, 2002.Both the investigator and Attorney Mitchell agreed to the visit occurring on the immediately, sothat it would be unanticipated and not provide time for any intentional maintenance to beperformed prior to the investigator arriving to the home to see the respondent.The investigator conducted the home visit and was infonned that since the investigator's lastvisit, the respondent has obtained a hearing aide and new dentures.The investigator met with one of the care providers (Gloria) and was informed that she lives nextdoor and has known the respondent for about 8 years.She told the investigator that she has seen the transformation that the respondent has undergoneand stated that "Luann has done an excellent job."Attorney Mitchell showed the investigator a black binder, that contained detailed records for therespondent.The investigator observed that the following information is recorded: her blood sugar, continence(bladder and bowel), liquid intake, prescribed medications, bathing, meals, housekeeping,treatment to prevent bed sores and concerns.Attorney Mitchell and Gloria told the investigator that the respondent's linen is changed daily,housekeeping task (dusting, mopping, etc) are done on a daily basis. The investigator observed atask list on the wall that listed some of these chores.Attorney Mitchell also showed the investigator a supplies box that holds diabetic supplies for therespondent. The investigator also observed a weekly pill box that stores all of the respondent'srequired prescribed medications.

The investigator assessed that an accurate daily log is maintained to record the respondent's care.The investigator observed that the exterior of the home was well manicured, there was ahandicapped ramp and Attorney Mitchell pointed out that she arranged for the City of Clevelandto install two handicapped placards in the front of the house. She said that she has a handicappedsign for the vehicle too.During the interview, the investigator observed that the home was neat, clean, well furnished andthe respondent's bedroom and the kitchen has been painted since the investigator last visited.The investigator also assessed that the respondent continues to have the necessary medicalappliances (Hoyer lift, hospital bed and electric wheelchair).The investigator requested to see the frozen and refrigerated food supply and observed that therewas an abundance of frozen and refrigerated food. The refrigerator contained fresh fruits andvegetables that are reportedly prepared with each meal.The investigator observed that most of the frozen food had been labeled, dated and stored inbags. The investigator also observed that there was prepared food (i.e. cornbread, biscuits) thathad been frozen.Attorney Mitchell told the investigator that the evening shift unthaw the food and prepares it forthe next day.The investigator interviewed the respondent. She told the investigator that she was doing welland that there has been no concerns.Attorney Mitchell and Gloria told the investigator that the respondent comes her hair, brushes herteeth and performs minimal exercised without assistance.The investigator assessed that the responderit was alert, coherent, verbal, clear, pleasant and wasable to respond to the investigator's questions without assistance. She was neat, clean, wellgroomed and appropriately dressed in appearance.Attorney Mitchell said that a beautician comes to the respondent's home once a week to do herhair.

The investigator concludes that Attomey Mitchell continues to be appropriate and willing to actin the best interest of the respondent and continues to provide exceptional. care.The investigator concludes that the referral alleging concerns is unsubstantiated and unfounded.

DATE: March 6, 2002 INVESTIGATOR: Dawn Wood, L.S.W.

rr) 1wr

Advococ;u A,ssislance, Answers on Aging,

Rnnub HillEsturwr Dinttnr

aoard nf Tmnces

ai.mm T. Shea.enPresidenr

!oanne C. KanelYre Prr..idrnr

N'iltiam S. LeanyTreurirrer

^Yn1YC^ WYnY

re.•..t•n

(Sent via regular inaii and certifed mail lf 7000 1670 0002 5582 0353)

March 7, 2002

Ms. Bertha WashingtonC/O Ms. Luann Mitchell, Legal GuardianP.O. Box 08531Cleveland, Ohio 44108

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

I am writing to formally notify you that we have carefully reviewed yourNovember 2001 list of Ms. Bertha Washington's "Reimbursable ExpendituresFebruary 5, 2000 to March 28, 2000", also labeled "Plaintiff Exhibit A" (copyenclosed). This will also forrnally notify you that, unfortunately, the infonnationyou have provided is not sufficient for Westerrt Reserve Area Agency on Aging'sPASSPORT program to make any payments or reimbursements pursuant to theOhio Department of Job and Family Services' State Hearing Decision issued onJune 21, 2000. Our legal counsel have repeatedly asked you over the course of

. Homemaker/Custodial respite• Home medical eqpipment and supplies (not covered by the

traditional Medicaid program)• Independent living assistance. Minor home modifications. Nutrition consultation• Personal care/Respite• Social work and counseling• Transportation (for medical appointments)

,,,., ...., ,-..r,

• Adult day care• Chote services• Emergency response system• Home delivered moals

W RAA A/PASSPORT Program925 Euc6dAvenuc,Sulte550 - Ctevetund,Ohio4a115.1x05 • Phone 216621.0303 Tall•Free800.626.PASS - Fux 216.621.7174 • uw.PSAlOA.orp

Sincerely,

Karen S. VrtunskiDirector of Community-Based Long Term Care

C: Dale Nowak, Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP

r-^ED

BUCKINGHAM, DOOLITTLE &BURROUGHS, LLPAaorneys & Counselors at LawExpeiare Seu^x £xm4erxe'

1375E.9thStreet Swte1700 4velmd,Oluo 44114

216.621.5300 Fax216.611.5440 wrvw.bdbtaw.com

Dale A. Nowak216.615.7319330.252.5419 (direct fex)dnowak©bdbinw.cont

AlvonBoca Ruon

CGntondevelandColu`nbus

Via Regular U.S. Mail, Express Overnight U.S. Matl, and Attempted Facsimile (216) 486-0024

April 22, 2002

LuAnn Mitchell, pro seAttomey at LawP.O. Box 08531Cleveland, OH 44108

RE: L. Mitchell, Guardian for Bertha L. Washington, v. Westerrt Reserve AreaAgency on Aging, et al.

Cuyahoga Cty. Case No, 2002 ADV 0059296Judge John E. Corrigan

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

On April 16, 2002 your deposition was noticed and scheduled for April 22 2002 at 1:00 p.m.

The Notice of Deposition duces tecuin was sent ordinary mail on April 16, 2002, and additional copieswere sent via Federal Express and by facsimile. The attempted fax failed, and,on April 19, after it wasdiscovered the Federal Express service failed, another copy of the notice was sent to your Post Office boxvia Express Ovemight U.S. Mail. The Post Office has not returned as "undeliverable" the ordinary mailnotice sent on April 16, 2002. Further, the Post Office has confirmed that you personally signed for theovernight mail on April 20, 2002 ati 1:31 a.m.

Despite service of the notice, you did not appear for deposition on April 22, 2002. Please treat this as arequest, pursuant to Civil Rule 37 (E), that you contact me in writing and within 24 hours to provide anexplanation demonstrating just cause for your failure to appearr. Alternatively,'please contact me to makeai-rangements to provide reimbursement to WR:AAA for the damages it incurred in attempting yourdeposition.

Unless you respond to this request, my client will have no alternative but to file an appropriate motionseeking the imposition of sanctions. Hopefully, that can be avoided and this can be resolved amicably.

Lastly, enclosed is a new Notice of Deposition duces lecum scheduling your deposition for April 29, 2002at 1:00 P.M.

DAN/jej41-2:146701 1.

cc: Charles T. Brown, MagistrateRichard L. Gedeon, Magistrate

Expreas Mall

,^.E500.3.0

7!'v>3a2

E500 Express Mail.,^,.; ..:.-.,^ ..: . . ..^ ^.r.^,... . : '..:. . .^,-- ...... ^. . :a .^r.- a't: .^,G ` i:}C•I'!l:'t^. h[iriai'.t:^t.l fSlnl`:^ 'P'•^ ...,. . ..

;;• 1..0. ST/1NDARDS, FOA.ALL.EXPRESS,MAIL .. ,,,; -•:;::,•;

/

S. -

, A.

f_^^! ^^-•j(^

. .... .. .. .,.. , a 1 .ae,.:.. ..:,r,.t.._.,,, ... . ... ,

Basic Classification All mailable maf {er may be sent as ^zpress Mail. Specific types of mailable matter1 1'..fnust be'sent;as Express Mail o[ First Class fvl4ll; see E110. Express Mail is

:considered closed against postal inspectiqn_

Avallability .,;.Express Mail is art pxpedited postal seryice available,in fivebasic domestic,.1.2 servic's offerings (Same Day Airport Service, Custom Designed Service, Next Day

Servioe,:Second Day Service, and Military Service) for shlpping any mailableniatter; subject to the'standard•s below. Express Mail International Service isavailable between the United State§ and inost forelgn countries (see thelnternatfonal Mall ManaaR: `• :.

Dro Shi ment Ex ress Mail Custom Desi ned Service Ex ress Mail Next Da Service and) ,.P.. p P.. . 9 P, Y^ 1.3 Express Mail Second Da'y Service may be used to expedite movement of any

other dass of mall from one domestic USPS facility to another by Express Maildrop shipment, subject to the corresppnding standards.

Per Piece Charge Express Mail postage is charged for each addressed piece according to its weight1;4 and the.service option choen,by.the mailer.. For shipments presented in Express

Mail pouches,under an Express.Mail Custom Designed Service agreement, eachpouch is considered an addressed piece.

Flat Rate Envelope Material mailed in the special flat rate envelope available from the USPS is subject1.5 to the postage rdtefor a 2-pound piece at the service level reqtfested by the

customer, regardless of the weight of the inaterial placed in the flat rate envelope.

Service Agreement A service agreement is required before mallings may be made under Express Mail1.6 Custom Designed Service. Prior authorization or arrangement is not required for

other types of Express Mail service.

Account Written application Is required to mail with an Express Mail Corporate Account.

FEES

Address Correction2.2

3.0

The required pickup fee is charged every time pickup.service is provided,regardless of the number of pieces picked up, as described in D010.

The fee for mahual or automated address correction•service is charged per noticeissued,

EXPRESS MAIL SAME DAY AIRPORT SERVICEExpress Mail Same Day Airport Service is available between designated USPSairport mail facilities (AMFs). Such mail must be presented during hours specifiedby the USPS. On arrival at the destination AMF, the mail is made available forclaim by the addr.essee by the time determined for each such shipment whenaccepted at the origin facility.

i

y.,.' DMM Issue 52, 07-01-97 E-77

n E500.4.0

:4.0

Avaflability4.1

/

Scheduled Basis4.2

Additional Fee4.3

Service Agreement

ServiceCommencement

4.5

Changes4.6

Termination by USPS4.7

Termination by Mailer4.8

5.0

E-78

Where Available5.1

Where Not Available5.2

Acceptance Times5.3

Express Mail

EXPRESS MAIL CUSTOM DESIGNED SERVICE

Express Mail Custom Designed Service is available to and from any location inthe United States.

Express Mail Custom Designed Service is available only on a scheduled basisbetween designated -USPS facllifie's''or'o4he^ designated locations for mailablematter presentel underthe service agreement between the USPS and the mailer.

Expiess'Mall Custorn Designed Service Items are subject to an additional fee foreach delivery stdp for items presented for delivery to addressee.

Each Ezpress Mall Custom Desigried Service Agreement must specify thesched'uled:'' -•

a. Place and day or date of orlgin fo^ eaoh shipment presented for service toeach,specifiodestination: ...' .

b. Place and day or date for claim or delivery at destination for each scheduledshipment.

c. Times of day for presenting at origin and for claim or delivery at destination.

Service provided under a servlce agreement must begin not more than 10 daysafter the signed seivice agreement is presented to the USPS.

At least 30 days' advance notice is required to change the Express Maildestinationaddress for origin caller service mail (accelerated reply mail).

Express Mail Custom Designed Service provided under a service agreement maybe terminated by the USPS on 10 days' written notice to the mailer, if servicecannot be provided for reasons beyond the control of the USPS or because ofchanges In USPS facilities or operations, or If the mailer falls to adhere to theterms of the service agreement or these standards.

A service agreement may be terminated by the mailer for any reason by notice tothe USPS.

EXPRESS MAIL NEXT DAY SERVICE

Express Mail Next Day Service is available at designated USPS facilities,designated Express Mail collection boxes, or through pickup service, for overnightservice to designated destinatlon 3-digit ZIP Code delivery areas, facilities, orlocations,

Next Day Service may not be available at or between all post offices or at all timesof deposif. An Express Mail Next Day Service directory, showing detailed localinformatlon about Express Mall Next Day Service, is available at post offices.

Express Mail Next Day Service mail must be presented by the times authorized bythe postmaster. Express Mall Next Day Service items mailed after the timeauthorized by the postmaster are accepted for delivery on the second day aftermailing, subject to the standards for this service, unless the item was:

a. Defayed by strike or work stoppage. .

b. Made available for claim, or delivery was attempted within the times specifiedby the standards for this service, and then the item was delayed becauseforwarding or return service was provided.

DMM Issue 52, 07-01-97

C

texpressMalt, E500.7.3

Post Officelo post ., - Under Post Office to Post Of(ice Service, items presented under 5.1 are availableOffice for claim by the addressee at the desYGnatlon.facility by.10 a.m. of the next day the

5.4 destlnation office is open for retail business..h

i9' . . • ![7l"a fl:, "0`.:+'-'Ff9Cf'^.) ifi ^911+.• 3C: )U' '^^b.^^'^ ^Y . . '. .

Post Offlce to +• UnderPost Offfce,to AddresseQ Service, Items presented under 5.1 are deliveredAddressee to an addressee within the designated delivery area of the destination facility by

5.5 noon or 3 p.m. of the next day. If delivery Is not made, the addressee is notifiedand a'second delivery attempted.

6.0 EXPRESS MAIL SECOND DAY SERVICE: , •"., . .... r. - . ,. .. .

Acceptance . Express Mail Seoond Day Service Is accepted at designated USPS facilities, at6.1 ,^:Express Mail collection boxes, and throUgh pickup service. .-

I - ^"' ' ..:1:"...... 1. .. . ; .;.'. ;. :, J. ' .

Acceptance•Tlmes . Express Mail Second Day Service shlpments must be presented by 5 p.m., or6.2 . such later Ume authorfzed by the postmaster. For Second Day Service, the USPS

refunds postage for an item not avallable for customer pickup or for which deliverywas not attempted, subject to the standards for this service, unless the Item was:

a. Delayed by strike or work stoppage.p. Made available for claim, or delivery was attempted within the times specified

by the standards for this service, and then the item was delayed becauseforwarding or return service was provided.

Avatiability Express Mail Seoond Day Service Is available to any 3-digit or 5-digit ZIP Code6.3 destination not listed In the Next Day Service directory mentioned in 5.2.

Post Offfce to Post Under Post Office to Post Office Service, items presented under 6.2 are availableOfflce for claim by the addressee at the destination facility by 10 a.m. of the second day

6.4 that the destination office Is open for retail business.

Post Office to Under Post Office to Addressee Service, items presented under 6.2 are deliveredAddressee to an addressee within the designated delivery area of the destination facility by

6.5 noon or 3 p.m. of the second day. If delivery is not made, the addressee is notifiedand a second delivery attempted.

7.0 EXPRESS MAIL MILITARY SERVICE (EMMS)

Availability EMMS Is available between the United States and designated APOs and FPOs to7.1 provide Department of Defense personnel stationed overseas, and others entitled

to APO and FPO mailing privileges, an expedited delivery service to or from theUnited States. EMMS Custom Designed Service and EMMS drop shipmentservice are available to authorized APO/FPO destinations.

Rates EMMS postage rates correspond to the type of service requested, based on the7.2 weight of the addressed piece.

Designated EMMS Is availabie at designated USPS facilities for 2-day or 3-day service toAcceptance Sites designated APO/FPO 5-digit ZIP Codes and at designated APO/FPO facilities for

7.3 2-day or 3-day service to designated 3-digit destination ZIP Code areas, facilities,or locations in the United States. The 3-day service option is offered from U.S.acceptance offices to APOs/FPOs to which 2-day EMMS is not logisticallysupportable. (All 2-day EMMS acceptance offices can accept EMMS shipmentsfor 3-day service after the looal cutoff time for normal 2-day service. DesignatedAPO/FPO facilities overseas can accept 3-day service EMMS shipments for

DMM Issue 52,07-01-97 E-79

wh

, r..^._ ____ a Qt ^

u

.•^ ? 4,•` ^ y4.z^ 1

71

^^

^

1- t'r. • 1p'^ (

•(1' :^'•

^'^^6^^:^t d

^ y I.^Y

. :+•wI 1 •h" •. `• .F.. 11C1w ^'L ^

- ^.^( A'1r fO

iJ .]t % i_'7 ^•1 ` M,1,^ ^$.53 4'':c".!'.p"' t:.f:,o ry { i.••SS:. i •

^ ^.ry ^• .`

.f

ff11.9^

f.

^•f

` ^.. V S ^ •..I ^^ . , ^r

LU^ ^ F°. ^7 i^; .'t► ",; ^

^

r^j^^

I •"'

,}"'_4; ,

' 4:. rJ ^+^u ^f 3 ^ .!g''

^^ ff`;? r ?^+

^ .Ci

.- .t d A1 ?.l-

. .4•+ •{! y, :^^,.

• .

.

c a3 E1 :. ^T1 Q. y

. ^• ^ fQ 1

^

^

^

t

D, ^ •c; r c; ^P Ei •^•r, r. "

1j 1, •)}

_!Q.. p

tLti'^Y

t9p

7i^

,;pA

`° ^ti

i^ ^ r^^ ^

.

^ ^•y,^

°'4.:

^'r:

u^. _i. " _ •to :^ . 'Q Cl,^s i.

'^

^;^ ci "' ^r•. .6i .i° ^iti

.Y ^,a^: ^.:,n^ ^'-,4 :3. ^n

} ^ ^••e (•.^. YYY^^^^• {{{[

C 0 ^(1

.{ KKK

rl.•^.^

^[+

^1(:. +

N55s'^•

t^: n

+' `Yi -1 U^ 11G•L

ji!

1. I,^

i

if t

1

+^.

V ^ 1JV^ ..._... . ^^M^•.1^•

,"T^^

Qddressee Copy1' labd 11"B Mry 2001

N

^L^

*

r^ PeCkaDUW h Ne p+operty or Ne U.S. PO^ Sarvbe and 13 ruvWBd .solaly ra use !n suntlhp Etp/asa Ma4. MLsuau mey 0 a vblatlon cl lBOern/ le

Bob TaftGovemor

S E R V I C@ S

30 East Broad Street • Columbus, Ohio 43215•3414www.s tace.oh.us /od jfs

September 19, 2002

Dale A. NowakBuckingham, Doollttle & Burroughs, LI P1375 East 9ih StreetSuite 1700Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Dear Mr. Nowak:

Thomas]. HayesDirector

I am writing in reference to,the letter you sent Januaty 22, 2002, requesting that we reopen the issue ofreimbursement for Medical Expenses for Ms. Bertha Washington, I apologize for this great delay in respondingto your request. The letter you sent was inadvertently filed with other items and just recently found.

The Ohio Adtnirtistrative Code Rules that govem our progtam, prohibit us from reopening an issue once it hasbeen decided through hearing. The orily option to revisit an appeal already settled, is for the appellant torequest an administrative appeal, and then judicial review. That was not done, so the issue of eligibility forreimbursement for care provided to Ms. Washington from February 5, 2000 through March 28, 2000, issettled and is binding on the agency.

There will be, however, a new hearing scheduled the week of November 19, 2002, to adjudicate the issue ofspecific requests for reimbursement that have been denied, or not yet paid. The delay in scheduling is due tothe unavailabiliry of Ms. Washington's representative.

Again, please forgive the delay in this response.

S' cerely,

Virginia Ringel, Asst. ChiefBureau of State Hearings

c: Karen Vrtunski, WRAAA

An Equal Opportunity Employer

9y, SUVb wL t06VaVV tvmo Ap . o vw,.), auuu wwv- on ,.+

FIF'SS slip copy)

on the basis of res judicata and lack of the case throughout the remaiader of 2002 and most

concem9na her claim for reimbursement following 2003, aee Mitshell J, over one yoar after the casodiction and also sought discovery from Mitchell of 2003. He eventually deposed her in September

the termination of the PASSPORT beneftts. ^, had been dasmissed.

{4 8) In June of 2002, Mitchell filed a separateaction for reimbursement from WRAAA in theGeneral Division of the Common Pleas Court butthis case was disaussed two days later.

02 {1 9} On June 26, 2002, Mltchell filed a noticeof dismissal in the second probate action, notingthat the probate court did not have "authority orjurisdiction to enforce two admiaistrative hearingdecisions[.]"

{9 101 On July 16, 2002, WRAAA moved forattorney fees and sanctions under R•C, 2323.51 andCiv. R. 11 in the probate proceedings. In relevantpart, WRAAA asserted:

{4 11} "Ms. Mitchell's commencemont andprosecution of this action since February 2002 hasbeen frivolous and calculated to harass ormaliciously injure WRAAA '" ' * Plaintiffsresistence to discovery and Magistrate Brown'sorder of May 9 [2002] only served to run upDefendant's attorneys' fees in further violation ofthe statute.

{N12}""'•

{II 131 "Plaintiff dismissed (the second probateaction) by notice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A). In hernotice she acknowledged this action was beingdismissed because she knew there was no 'authorityor jurisdiction' in this Probate Court to determineher action for Deciaratory Retief."

{4 14) Counsel for WRAAA also asserted thatM.Ltchell admitted in the general procculings thatshe knew that the probate court had no jurisdictionover the second action she had filed there. He alsoquestioned various receipts that Mitchell hadsubruitted tn support of ber alaim forreimbursement, and noted that one item was for acomputer and MitcheII's ward was incompetent.

{V 15) Counsel for WRAAA continued to work on

(1 16) 17te court denied the motion and WRAAAappealed to this court. In a decision dated August19, 2004, this court determined that the probatecourt abused its diseretion in denying WRAAA'smotion for sanctions without holding a hearing, andreversed and remanded. In so concluding, this courtnoted that, despite the previous dismissal of the firstprobate ;ction for lack of jurisdiction, MitcheIIfiled a sinttilar action in probate court approximatelyone month later. The court aLso noted that duringthe pendency of the second action, WRAAAunsuccassfully attempted to depose Mitchell.

{4 17} On February 11, 2005, following theremand by this court, the attomey for WRAAAsubmitted an itemized fee statement that indicatedthat he had worked on thb case virtualiy everysingle week from the June 2002 dismissal ofMitchell's second probate action through October2003. The requested fees, at $170 per hour, whichhad totaled approximately $14,684.42 in attorneys •fees and expenses at the time the action wasdismissbd, had now totated $38,208.79, and totaled$42,815.79 through the end of the frivolous conducthearing. He testifred that he reviewed the factors setforth in DR 2-106 and he determined that they weiemet; he preseatcd no evideace as to the factors anddid not link the billed items directly to Mitchell'ssecond four-tnonth long lawsuit.

03 {$ 18) The tnagistrate recommended that theoourt find that Mitchelt's conduct was frivolous andthat WRAAA be awarded attomey fees. Themagistrate noted that, following the stateadministrative. hearing as to reimbursement,MitcheIl could have appealed to the court ofcommon pleas pursuant to R.C. 5101.35. Themagistrate also noted that Mitchell was seeking toinjure WRAAA by requiring payment forunprovable expenses, avoided disoovery and wasevasive under oath. The magistrate determined,however, that the hourly rate charged by WRAAA'scounsel was not reasonable and that a morereasonable rate was $100 per hour for a total of

0 2007 Thotnsoo/VVest, No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works,

2003-2004 OHicere:I'HOMAS J. ESCOVARDreeident

JUSTIN F. MADDEN

Oresldent.Eloot

DIANA M. THIMMIG

tstvice Prosldent

02:50 2167215088

r-^

WATSON

The Cuyahoga County Bar Asso6iation626 tiuperior Avenue, East - Sulte 1240

CleveEand, Ohio 44114(218; 821-8112 Fax (216) 523-2259

www.cuybar.org

LAURENCE A. TURBOW2nd Viee Proeldenl

LuAnn MJtChellAttorpey at Law12621 Arlington AvenueCleveland, Ohio 44108

February 20, 2004

PAGE 02

HOWARD R. BESSERSeaolary

MARTHA H. KREBSTraaarter

9ARBARA C.GREENBERGErzaculive areotor

Re; Case # 03-64 CCBA/CerliBed Grietzteee Conratftbae vis LuAnn MficheJl, Lsg.

Dear Ms. Mitchell:

The Certified Grievance Comtnittee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association has determined that theevidence developed in the course of its ixivestigation does not support a finding that you violated theCode of Frofessional Responsibility. Accordittgly, the gr).evance has been distnissed for the followingreason:

Thelnvostigetordidnotfind thYt the conduct vtoleted the Code oftYoh;sslona.l respanslbtUty.

The rccords of the Grievance Corumiltee have been so noted.

very tru.ly yours

Howard D. Mishkind, ChairCertified Grievance Committee

HD&L•cmb

CASE NO. '-/& zS5^- ASSIGNED JUDGE

{^Ic7<r/le.`_ VS_/^t ^Gl• Cu_

J

q 02 REASSIGNED

q 03 REINSTATED (C/A)

q 04 REINSTATED

q 20 MAGISTRATE

q 40 ADR

q 65 STAY

q 69 SUBMITTED

D

S

0S

T

^

N

q 81 JURYTRIAL q 89q 82 ADR DECREE q 91q 83 COURTTRIAL

q 85 PRETRIAL q 92

q 86 FOREIGN JUDGMENT q 93

q 87 DIS. W/O PREJ q 95

q 88 BANKRUPTCY/APPEAL STAY q 96

DIS. W/PREJ.

COGNOVITS

DEFAULT

TRANS TO COURT

TRANS TO JUDGE

OTHER

NO. JURORS COURT REPORTER q PARTIAL

STARTOATE STARTDATE___/_/__ q FINAL

ENDDATE ENDDATE _/_/_ q POSTCARD

DATE -/_4L/-Q-.?- (NUNC PRO TUNC ENTRY AS OF & FOR CLERK OF COURTS

/v RECE VED FOR FILING

EB132002GER' . F cR^ ERE

AV 8Y

/1 "''

^ ^^^t°cGr<4-`UDGE

CaYahaTATF pp pRl9a Counly I G

r F^FRi L'F :c' ^ SS THFCpAUA,T pfUFRST C^"^^X

^

,.WIrN1NAa KOFr^,C^ ^npiR1

^

TlF30R Ar,^ n70.95A1,)p0^^^z«;,^at tvf ufNAi " ^CC^D

AlY^ SS At. ti n r ,1^?f_ t. _^^^.^ ^ r TRUIY

f!( Gl ' '^1...-e^: ...,,^rq[ Or^,/ 3ifD CDU8Y zo RT TR/s

Cferk^^.

F0RM

CPC w2

February 13, 2002

TO: Steve Crotine

FROM: Luann Mitchell

re: Mitchell v. Illuminating Company

Dear Mr. Crotine:

Under cover of this letter is a court order from Common Pleas Judge K. Callahan. As aninterested party, you are hereby on notice that a hearing is set concerning your allegation of theft.

As an interested party, I am required to inform you of the hearing date and time. It is to be heldbefore Judge Callahan, on the 22nd Floor of the Justice Center located at 1200 Ontario StreetCleveland, Ohio 44113. The hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. All interested parties arecommanded, by court order dated February 13, 2002, to be present.

This will be your only notice concerning this matter. Thank you in advance for your attention to

same.

Sincerely,

Zua.r+e 91tcYc<ref8

Luann Mitchell

via facsimile @ 440.350.7787

ATTENTION: TO Mr. Bill Shirk, Supervisor, Concord Meter Services - As discussed

with Matt Slagle, Manager, Northern Region Headquarters, please deliver to Mr. Crotine

immediately. Thank you .

February 13, 2002

Detective Brian D. RinasRichmond Heights Police Department457 Richmond RoadRichmond Heights, Ohio 44143

re: Mitchell v. Illuminating Company

Dear Mr. Rinas:

Under cover of this letter is a court order from Common Pleas Judge K. Callahan. As aninterested party, you are hereby on notice that a hearing is set concerning your allegation of theft.

As an interested party, I am required to inform you of the hearing date and time. It is to be heldbefore Judge Callahan, on the 22"d Floor of the Justice Center located at 1200 Ontario StreetCleveland, Ohio 44113. The hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. All interested parties arecommanded, by court order dated February 13, 2002, to be present.

This will be your only notice concerning this matter. Thank you in advance for your attention tosame.

Sincerely,

.C'ua" 7&4'telseFl

Luann Mitchell

via facsimile @ 216.383.6322 and hand-delivery

I Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Clevefmtd &rr As,xn.v. 6filclrell, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Oh(o-1822.1

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance

sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the

Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus,

Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that

corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION N0.2008-OHIO-1822

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. MITCHELL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Cleveland BarAssn. v. Mitchell,

Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-1822.]

Attorneys at law - Mulliple disciplinary violations, including deceit, frivolous lawsuits, and use

of fal.se evidence - 18-month suspension with 12-month .sJay andprobation.

(No. 2007-1581 - Submitted December 12, 2007 - Decided April 23, 2008.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the

Supreme Court, No. 06-007.

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1) Respondent, Luann Mitchell of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.

0007205, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983.

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we

suspend respondent's license to practice for 18 months. in the last 12 months on conditions,

based on findings that she tried to obtain edicaid reimbursement r a client's unsubstantiated

health-care expenses, pursued frivolous lega acttons, and refused to'provide her office or

residence address as required for attorney registration. We agree that respondent committed

professional misconduct as found by the board and that an 18-month suspension, with 12 months

stayed on conditions to improve her methods of practice, is appropriate.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

(113) Relator, Cleveland. Bar Association, charged respondent in a three-count

cpmplaint. with rnultiple. violations of the Co& o.f Professional Responsibility.:and with

disobeying the registration requirements of C'iov:Bar:R. VIr. A. panel of the:board.heard the oase,

making findings of misconduct and recommending;the.l8=month suspensiorrand conditional 12-

month stay. The board adopted the panel's 'findings and recommended sanction, adding as

conditions of the stay that respondent comply with an underlying court order to pay sanctions

and properly register as an attomey.

{¶ 4} Respondent has filed three objections but developed only two of her arguments

enough to warrant disposition. Objections II and•III challenge the validity of sanctions ordered

against respondent by the Cuyahoga County Probate Court in litigation underlying the board's

repon. There, the probate court determined that respondent had attempted to thwart through

frivolous legal action a private company's efforts to verify and pay expenses for which

respondent had claimed Medicaid reiinbursement. Respondent cites no authority for this

collateral attack on the probate court proceedings:'The objections are therefore overruled.

; :M'isconduct

Coaents / und II - Responden!• Yi61a12d Disciplinary Rules

I?rohi$iJing Dishonesty and Frivolous: Lawsuits.

(151 Respondent claims to oversee the care of senior citizens on a volunteer basis. She

described the assistance she provides this way:

{¶ 6) "1 keep a stable of 23 seniors that I'm able to assist, and that's based on the

number of adult day workers and home health aides that I have available to me. I would never

take more than the 23, because I could not provide them with quality. So I kept them then, and I

still have them now. And when they die off, I replace them; and I normally keep a stable of

about 23 of them.°"

M 7) The Cuyahoga County probate court appointed respondent as guardian of the

person and estate of Bertha L. Washington. As of 1999, Washington was ove; 90 years old and,

as a housebound Medicaid recipient, enrolled in Ohio's PASSPORT prograrri: According to the

Western Reserve AreaAgency on Aging"("WRAAA"); a' private companythen resporisible for

administering the program,' PASSPORT',regufations afforded Washington health-care benefits

only until she became confined to a nursing horne or rehabilitation facility.

2

January Term,2008

{¶ 8} Washington was hospitalized during October 1999. In early November of that

year, she was transferred. to: a. rehabilitation: facility; with her discharge anticipated in early

February : 2000.: ,.In mid-Decenber 1999; WRAAA terminated .Washington's enrollment in

PASSPORT as a result of:her rehabilitative confinement. „

Respondent Wins Reimbursement,for Her Clrent

{¶ 9) Respondent appealed WRAAA's decision to disenroll Washington to the then

Ohio Department of Human Services ("ODHS"). A state hearing officer determined that the

WRAAA had lawfully tetminated Washington from the progratn, but cautioned WRAAA that

pnce a PASSPORT recipient had filed a.timely appeal, regulations precluded WRAAA from

terminating benefits until the state hearing officer's decision. On further appeal, ODHS affirmed

the finding of lawful termination.

{¶ 10) Respondent then initiated a new administrative appeal to obtain the

reimbursement to which the hearing officer had.implied her client was entitled. She also asserted

that her client had been refused.reenrollment• in,PASSPORT. In June 2000, another hearing

officer upheld the refusal of reenrollment but,order,ed WRAAA to reimburse Washington at "the

previous level" for;the health,care.expenses;she,•paid,from February 5, 2000, the date she was

discharged from rehabilitative care, until March 28,:2000, the date of the first hearing officer's

decision.

The Legal Proceedings Begin

{¶ 11) WRAAA accepted the finding that it had improperly terminated services to

Washington for February through March 2000, and, beginning in July 2000, WRAAA attempted

to comply with the reimbursetnent order. WRAAA, first wrote to respondent; asking her to

document the providers and cost of services for which Washington had paid during the relevant

period. Respondent did not reply.

11121 Respondent would later repeatedly ignore WRAAA's attempts to verify her

client's health-care expenses and impede the, reimbursement process by filing a series of legal

actions. She filed, with the probate court: in,;ApriL,2001 an,;"Ex-Parte Motion to Enforce

Judgment.against [WRAAA]," claiming,$31L;522 in reipibursable expenses, ;"5he-did, not initiaUy

serve WRAAA:with notice,of this filing., OnV RAAA's;motion,,that court ultimately-dismiss.ed

respondent's action in January 2002, citing lack of jurisdiction. Respondent did not appeaL

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 13} In May 2001, an attomey forWRAAA wrotedo respondent, again asking her to

verify Washington's health-care providersahd :theeost!,of their:servi'ces! He'eXplained'that

WRAAA needed to determine whether the services were lik'e'those of PASSPORT arid within

the scope of Wasliington's service plan of care. Respondent did not reply.

{T 14) In August 2001, the probate courtattenipted to facilitate Washington's

reimbursement. During one proceeding, respondent told a magistrate that she had sent

inforination sufficient to verify Washington's expenses to WRAAA's attorney, which WRAAA

attorney Dale A. Nowak denied. The magistrate instructed respondent to produce the requested

information.

{115} Several days after this hearing, Nowak wrote to respondent, asking her to

"redouble" efforts to document Washington's reimbursable health-care expenses. In mid-

November 2001, the parties appeared again before the magistrate, and respondent produced a

one-page document listing expenditures of $29,577. She gave no receipts or other records to

corroborate the expenses, however; or even the names of the providers.

{¶ 16} Nowak' advised the niagistrate''that`. respOndent's list',of expenditures ^ did not

satisfy state reimbursen3ent standards: `To make::sure;"the niagistrate told WRAAi4 to submit

respondent's list of expenditures to the Ohio Department of Aging, the agency responsible for

approving reimbursement. As Nowak had anticipated, that agency rejected the list as

insufficient. Nowak wrote two more letters that November, asking respondent to substantiate

Washington's health-care expenditures. She did not.

Respondent's Second Lawsuit

{¶ 17) In February 2002, soon after the dismissal of her "ex parte" proceeding,

respondent filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the probate court, again claiming

$31,527 in reimbursable expenses on Washington's behalf. WRAAA moved to dismiss for

reasons again including the probate court's limited jurisdiction.

{¶ 18) Nowak, on WRAAA's behalf, then tried to verify Washington's reimbursable

health-care expenses through discoveryi He sent notimto respondent "of her scheduled

deposition ducestecum and inoved to corripel this disc'overy `when she did not appear. A probate

court magistrate heard WRAAA"s`motionin` April 2002;butrespond'enf also did notappear for

that proceeding. Respondent later claimedlack-of nbtice for both the deposition and the hearing.

4

January Term, 2008

{¶ 19} WRAAA sent a second noticeof deposition duces tecum. to respondent, but slie

failed to,. appear. Instea¢; respondent inexplicably moved to quash the notice as if it were a

subpoena. A third deposition date was canceled,while the parEies awaited a ruling on the motion

to quash. ... . . . ,

(120) In May 2002, the ntagistrate overruled respondent's motion to quash, ordering her

to appear and be deposed on a date in May 2002. Respondent still did not appear, and WRAAA

asked the probate court to find her in contempt. In June 2002, the magistrate once more ordered

respondent to appear for her deposition and to substantiate Washington's health-care expenses.

Respondenl's Third Lawsuit

{¶ 21) But rather than appear as instructed, respondent filed at the end of June 2002 an

emergency proceeding in the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court,

seeking a summary order reducing Washington's claim to a judgment against WRAAA for over

$31,000. Two days later, respondent voluntarily dismissed the pending declaratory judgment

action for reasons she would later be unable to consistently explain to the hearing panel. On the

same day as.the dismissal, the common pleas.court heard evidence in the emergency proceeding

but promptly dismissed the case after leatning that WRAAA had been trying for nearly two years

to verify the expenditures in dispute.

WRAAA Seelw• Attorney Fees and Sanctions; and Respondenl 's Fourth Lawsuit

(122) In July 2002, after respondent dismissed her declaratory judgment action,

WRAAA file a motion in the probate court to award attorney fees and sanctions pursuant to

Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Protracted proceedings, including two appeals, ensued. See

Mitchell v. W. Res. Agency, Cuyahoga App. No. 86708, 2006-Ohio-2475, and Mitchell v. W. Res.

Area Agency on Aging, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 83837 and 83877, 2004-Ohio-4353. The probate

court ultimately awarded what respondent estimated at the panel hearing to be $28,000 in

sanctions. The sanctions remain unpaid, perhaps because respondent is continuing to contest the

award.

{¶ 23) Pursuant to the motion.for fees and sanctions, WRAAA resumed trying to depose

respondent in July 2002. She.did.not appear, filing instead a fourth action against WRAAA in

cominon pleas court. In March 2003,.the court also dismissed that proceeding.

{¶ 24) In August 2002, the successor to ODHS, Ohio Job.and Family Services ("OJFS"),

admonished respondent that by failing to substantiate Washington's health-care expenses in

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

accordance with state standards, she had prevented WRAAA from making the ordercd

reimbursement: As a result, OJFS had concluded that' WRAAA was in compliance with the state

hearing officer's decision. ODHS afterward scheduled a final hearing, on respondent's request,

to allow her to verify the expenses in dispute, but she did not take advantage of that proceeding.

{¶ 25} Meanwhile, WRAAA filed another motion to compel discovery in probate court.

The magistrate granted the motion in December 2002, and in overruling respondent's objections,

the judge afterward ordered respondent to appear for her deposition on March 25, 2003.

Respondent finally appeared at the appointed date and time, but the parties had to continue the

proceeding to allow respondent to retrieve her records.

{¶ 26) Respondent thereafter failed to arrange a date to resume her deposition and

produce the requested records, and WRAAA again inoved the probate court to find her in

contempt. Respondent did not appear at the hearing on that motion. She finally appeared and

resumed her deposition in early September 2003.

Respondenl s Fifih Lawsuit

{¶ 27} In late September 2003, respondent filed a mandamus action to compel the Ohio

Department of Aging to repay Washington more than $31,632. The courrof appeals dismissed

the action. Respondent told the hearing panel that she could not remember the reason for the

dismissal.

{¶ 28) In October 2003, the probate court sua sponte reinoved respondent as guardian of

Washington's estate, allowing her to remain as guardian of the person. Washington died on

November 6, 2003.

Respondent's Defense to the Charges o,f'Dis•honesly and Frivolous Filings

(¶ 29) Respondent could not justify her litigious refusal to substantiate the expenses for

which she claimed reimbursement. Of the documents that are in the record, none established

whether asserted expenditures were supplied by PASSPORT-approved providers. Some records

identified costs without even naming the provider. To the extent that the.records contained

invoices, many large purchases - hardware and software for a computer monitoring system,

construction for structural accommodations, and a furnace - were not accompanied by any

receipt or canceled check showing payment. As a result, the total of receipts and canceled

checks that coincide with the relevant reimbursement period do not come close to substantiating

either the $29,000 or $31,000 figures that respondent intermittently claimed.

6

January Term, 2008

(1301 As just one example, canceled checks from Washington's guardianship account

document at most $1;015 in costs of home care, erXands, meal preparation, and housekeeping for

Washington from February 5,.2000; through March 28; 2000. Cash receipts exist for $2,022

more in these services, for a total of $3;037. Respondent,.however; demanded reimbursenient

for $7,682 in such services for the same period.

{¶ 31} Similarly suspect was respondent's unsubstantiated claim that she paid health-

care workers and contractors with counter checks rather than checks printed for debits from the

guardianship bank account. And her explanation of how some of these creditors agreed not to

cash checks for an undetermined period, possibly until she obtained money to.pay them from

WRAAA, is dubious at best. Supposedly, a few of the home-care workers and contractors had

retumed checks to respondent on her request, yet she did not produce even one such check for

the panel's review.

1132) We also doubt the validity of respondent's cash receipts. Health-care workers

testified to having negotiated some of respondent's counter checks, but not one of these canceled

checks was presented as evidence: Moreover,:.the,receipts indicated that one witness received

$1,522 in checks orcash,.supposedly fordoing Washington'shousework and meals during

February and March 2000. A receipt for a $512 payment to that witness, however, specified that

she provided the service in February and March of 2002, a discrepancy for which no one offered

a credible explanation.

{¶ 33) Respondent's account of the underlying events defied rational belief and suffered

from gaping lapses in corroborative proof. For claims such as that she provided the records she

had to WRAAA's lawyers, whenever requested, respondent did not offer as much as a cover

letter. Moreover, she persistently overanswered questions during the hearing with circuitous

unresponsiveness, confounding the panel members. The panel and board did not credit

respondent's defense for these reasons, and neither do we.

{¶ 34} Respondent deceptively claimed reimbursement for expendityres that she could

not substantiate and thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial. to the

administration of justice),. and (6) (prohibiting other conduct..that adversely reflects on the

lawyer's fitness to practice law).. She then tried to conceal the discrepancy through illegitimate

lawsuits and falsified evidence in violation of DR 7-102(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from taking

7

SUPREME COURT OF 01110

legal action that the lawyer knows or should know will serve merely to harass or maliciously

injure another), (2) (prohibiting a lawyer trom knowingly advancing a claim or defense that is

unwarranted under existing law and not supported by good faith argutnent i'or an extension,

modification, or reversal of existing law), (4) (prohibiting a lawyer froni knowingly using false

evidence), (5) prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of law or fact), and

(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly creating or preserving false evidence). We therefore

adopt the board's findings of misconduct as to Counts I and II.

Count III - Respondent Violated Disciplinary Rules cand Gov.Bar R. VI by

Refusing to Pirovide Ner Current Addre.rs,for Attorney Registration.

{¶ 35) Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) requires that lawyers keep this court's Attorney Registration

Section apprised of the attorney's current residence and office address. Respondent has provided

only a post office box number for her attorney registration record. She also refused to disclose

her residence or office address to the panel, saying she did not want to accept service of process

where she lived. Respondent thereby violated Gov.Bar R. VI(l)(D) and DR 1-I02(A)(5) and (6).

Sanction

36) Rarely are we called upon to sanction a lawyer for advancing frivolous lawsuits.

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Pollock, 100 Ohio St.3d 280, 2003-Ohio-5752, 798 N.E.2d 594,

however, we suspended a lawyer for one year, staying the last six months on conditions of no

further misconduct, because he had exceeded bounds of zealous advocacy. That lawyer filed

more than 20 lawsuits arising out of the same series of transactions, advancing meritless and

repetitious claims merely to harass those whom he considered his client's oppressors.

{¶ 37) Respondent exhibited a similar overzealousness, violating her duty to aid the legal

system in the fair and efficient administration of justice, Unlike the lawyer in Pollock, however,

respondent also violated DR 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in a deceptive course of conduct. Because

we routinely impose a period of actual suspension for such misconduct, Disciplinary Counsel v.

Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-I 143, 824 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 44; Disciplinary Counsel v.

Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, paragraph one of the syllabus, the

infraction warrants an enhanced sanction here.

{¶ 38) But we must also weigh aggravating and mitigating factors in making our

disposition. See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Govetning Procedure on Complaints

and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD

8

January 1'erm, 2008

Proc.Reg."). Mitigating factors include that respondent.has no prior disciplinary record and has

a reputation for dedication to the elderly tmder her care. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and

(e). Indeed, respondent expressed much passion during these proceedings for protecting the

interests of disabled and senior citizens, which may explain why no evidence suggests that she

profited personally froin her zealous advocacy on Washington's behalf. And by all accounts,

Washington's health and living conditions improved dramatically under respondent's

supervision.

{¶ 39) Weighing against the mitigating factors is that respondent engaged in a pattem of

misconduct and multiple offenses. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). Moreover, though

respondent professed her good intentions, her recalcitrance in acknowledging wrongdoing is as

disturbing to us as it was to the panel and board. Respondent remains indignant that WRAAA

did not pay Washington's expenses based on little more than her say-so and has promised to

continue any other mission she undertakes with equal zeal. Finally, respondent still inexplicably

will not provide an address to complete her attorney registration, and she has not paid the

sanction ordered by the probate court.

{¶ 40) In adopting the panel's findings, the board aptly observed:

{¶ 41) "We recognize that Mrs. Washington, respondent's client and ward, seems not to

have been harmed; in fact, she seemingly thrived under respondent's care. "However, we have

found that respondent's actions otherwise were pervasive, and that respondent has no remorse.

She has multiple violations in addition to the DR 1-102 (A)(4) violation. Respondent has

deviated from truth, logic, and perhaps reality, but certainly from the standards required of an

attorney."

{¶ 42) We agree and adopt the sanction recommended by board. Respondent is therefore

suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months; however, the last 12 months of the

suspension are stayed on the conditions that she (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) complete

during the period of actual suspension three hours of continuing legal education in ethics and

professionalism and three hours in probate and guardianship law, in addition to requirements of

Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) complete a 12-month monitored probation period pursuant to Gov.Bar R.

V(9) to commence upon her reinstatement. As further conditions of the.stay, respondent shall

(1) comply with Gov.Bar R. Vl(1)(D) within 30 days of our order, and (2) pay any sanctions

ordered by the probate court during the initial six months of suspension or within 90 days of a

9

SUPREME COURT OF OfilO

probate court final order. If respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay or probation,

the stay will be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire 18-month suspension.

{¶ 43} Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, and CUPP,

JJ., concur.

LANZiNGER, J., concurs in judgment only.

Gallagher Sharp, Sheila A. McKeon, and Timothy J. Fitzgerald, for relator.

Luann Mitchell, for pro se.

I0