Bush v. Schiavo

885 So.2d 321 (2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Theresa was born on December 3, 1963, and lived with or near her parents in Pennsylvania. She married Michael Schiavo on November 10, 1984. Michael and Theresa moved to Florida in 1986. Theresa, age 27, suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of a potassium imbalance. Michael called 911, and Theresa was rushed to the hospital. She never regained consciousness. Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life-threatening. Eight years after Theresa lost consciousness, Michael petitioned the guardianship court to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures. Theresa's parents, the Schindlers opposed the petition. The guardianship court issued an extensive written order authorizing the discontinuance of artificial life support. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Theresa was in a persistent vegetative state and that Theresa would elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision. This order was affirmed on direct appeal. Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. Much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years. The guardianship court's final order authorizing the termination of life-prolonging procedures was affirmed on direct appeal, the litigation continued because the Schindlers began an attack on the final order. The Schindlers filed a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2) and (3) in the guardianship court, alleging newly discovered evidence and intrinsic fraud. The Schindlers also filed a separate complaint in the civil division of the circuit court, challenging the final judgment of the guardianship court. See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551, 555-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo II). The trial court determined that the post-judgment motion was untimely and the Schindlers appealed. The Second District agreed that the guardianship court had appropriately denied the rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3) motion as untimely. The Second District also reversed an injunction entered in the case pending before the civil division of the circuit court. However, the Second District determined that the Schindlers, as 'interested parties,' had standing to file either a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) or an independent action in the guardianship court to challenge the judgment on the ground that it is 'no longer equitable for the trial court to enforce its earlier order.' Schiavo II, 792 So. 2d at 560 (quotation marks omitted). The Schindlers must plead and prove newly discovered evidence of such a substantial nature that it proves either (1) that Theresa would not have made the decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures fourteen months earlier when the final order was entered, or (2) that Theresa would make a different decision at this time based on developments subsequent to the earlier court order. The Schindlers filed a timely motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5). See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo III). The trial court summarily denied the motion but the Second District reversed and remanded to the guardianship court for the purpose of conducting a limited evidentiary hearing. The Second District permitted the Schindlers to present evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the judgment was no longer equitable. Even with the new evidence a new independent physician, the guardianship court denied the Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment. The Second District once again reviewed the decision. It held that the case is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. It affirmed the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment. The Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, the Governor signed the Act into law, and the Governor issued executive order No. 03-201 to stay the continued withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa. The nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted pursuant to the Governor's executive order. Michael then brought the action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court. The circuit court entered a final summary judgment finding the Act unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Theresa. It was an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and as a violation of the right to privacy, and unconstitutional as applied because it allowed the Governor to encroach upon the judicial power and to retroactively abolish Theresa's vested right to privacy. This appeal resulted.