Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4722-14T4
02-02-2017
IN THE MATTER OF E.N.
Schutjer Bogar, LLC, attorneys for appellant Golden Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC (John Pendergast, on the briefs). Helen C. Dodick, Acting Public Guardian, attorney for respondent Office of the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults of New Jersey (Jonathan A. Pfoutz, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Espinosa, Guadagno, and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Salem County, Docket No. 31-2014. Schutjer Bogar, LLC, attorneys for appellant Golden Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC (John Pendergast, on the briefs). Helen C. Dodick, Acting Public Guardian, attorney for respondent Office of the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults of New Jersey (Jonathan A. Pfoutz, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Golden Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (GRNC) appeals a May 11, 2015 order that denied a request by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to assess an award of attorney's fees against GRNC. GRNC's appeal also referenced an order of February 13, 2015, which denied its petition for equitable relief and dismissed it. In that petition, GRNC sought to compel the OPG to execute an authorization naming GRNC as an authorized representative to pursue retroactive Medicaid benefits on behalf of E.N., who then was a resident at the GRNC facility.
OPG has not filed a notice of cross-appeal. --------
We were advised by OPG that E.N. passed away on January 17, 2017, while this appeal was pending. Because this appeal concerns an application for retroactive Medicaid benefits on behalf of E.N., who now is deceased, the appeal is moot. Although the OPG (and not GRNC) requests that we decide the appeal on the merits, we decline to do so because the appeal does not raise an issue of substantial public importance or one incapable of evading review. See Zirger v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327, 330 (1996). Cf. Mistrick v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs., 154 N.J. 158, 165 (1998) (electing to resolve whether an asset is includable for determining Medicaid eligibility "notwithstanding its mootness" after the death of the recipient, based on significant public importance and the potential for repetition).
Dismissed with prejudice and without costs. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION