Opinion
1 CA-CV 12-0041
02-19-2013
In the Matter of the Guardianship of: MICHAEL THOMAS PETRAMALA, An Adult. MICHAEL PETRAMALA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC FIDUCIARY, as Guardian and Conservator of Michael T. Petramala; JUDITH MORSE, Guardian ad Litem for Michael T. Petramala, Respondents/Appellees.
Baumann, Doyle, Paytas & Bernstein, PLLC By Michael J. Doyle Attorneys for Appellant Kessler Law Offices By Eric W. Kessler Attorney for Appellee Judith Morse
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c);
Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 28, Arizona Rules of
Civil Appellate Procedure
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. PB2006-002295
The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge
AFFIRMED
Baumann, Doyle, Paytas & Bernstein, PLLC
By Michael J. Doyle
Attorneys for Appellant
Phoenix
Kessler Law Offices
By Eric W. Kessler
Attorney for Appellee Judith Morse
Mesa
NORRIS, Judge ¶1 Appellant Michael Petramala appeals the probate court's order denying his petition to terminate his guardianship, application for leave to file a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, and petition to set aside pre-filing review orders. ¶2 On appeal, Petramala argues:
1. The restrictions on his access to the courts are fundamentally unfair, overbroad, and in excess of the judiciary's inherent power to control access to the courts.
2. Enforcement of the pre-filing review restrictions violates federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and therefore violates his constitutionally-protected rights.
3. The probate court's denial of his petition to terminate continues to violate his right to seek redress through the courts, his right to due process, and his right to equal protection as provided by the United States and Arizona constitutions.
4. The probate court's denial of his petition to terminate and continued reliance on an administrative order prohibiting him from filing any action in the Maricopa County Superior Court without prior court approval is not supported by Arizona law and does not constitute the least restrictive means of addressing his incapacity.
5. The probate court's denial of his petition to terminate continues to violate his right to keep and bear arms.
6. The probate court's denial of his petition to terminate violates his rights under the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
7. The probate court's denial of his petition to terminate continues to violate rights previously violated by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during the initial guardianship jury trial.
8. The pending pre-filing review order is a preliminary injunction entitling him to a final hearing.
9. The probate court's refusal to terminate his guardianship and its pre-filing review order violates Arizona's Healthcare Freedom Amendment and rights thereunder.
¶3 We recounted the history of Petramala's guardianship and the superior court's orders requiring him to obtain pre-filing review in our October 30, 2012 memorandum decision. See In re Guardianship of Petramala, 1 CA-CV 11-0217, 2012 WL 5333547 (Ariz. App. Oct. 30, 2012) (mem. decision). In that ruling, we addressed all but one of the issues Petramala raises in this appeal and we will not consider those issues again. ¶4 The only new issue Petramala raises is his argument that the guardianship and pre-filing review orders violate Arizona's Healthcare Freedom Amendment. Petramala's entire argument on this issue is that he "is subjected to a hybrid health care system by which he is the only person whose [Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System] benefits are restricted by a decision making panel comprised of his guardian ad litem, the staff of the Maricopa County Public Fiduciary's Office and the probate court based upon his being allegedly disabled," in violation of Article 27, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution. That provision states, in relevant part: "A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system." Ariz. Const. art. 27, § 2(A)(1). ¶5 Petramala's argument is frivolous. The Arizona Healthcare Freedom Amendment limits the state's power to compel an individual to participate in a health care payment scheme and is wholly unrelated to the guardianship or the pre-filing review orders. Because this issue is completely without merit, we have decided to sanction Petramala and his counsel pursuant to Rule 25 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Under Rule 25, an appeal may be considered frivolous when a party takes a position that is not supported by any reasonable legal theory and presents no colorable legal argument, which is the case here. See also Matter of Levine, 174 Ariz. 146, 152-53, 847 P.2d 1093, 1099-1100 (1993). Although we impose ARCAP 25 sanctions only with "great reservation," Ariz. Tax Research Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 163 Ariz. 255, 258, 787 P.2d 1051, 1054 (1989) (citation omitted), sanctions are warranted in this case. ¶6 Therefore, we affirm the probate court's denial of Petramala's petition to terminate his guardianship, application for leave to file a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, and petition to set aside pre-filing review orders. Pursuant to ARCAP 25, we order Petramala and his counsel, Bauman, Doyle, Paytas & Bernstein, PLLC, jointly and severally to pay all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Petramala's court-appointed guardian ad litem, Appellee Judith Morse, in this appeal contingent upon her submission of a statement itemizing her attorneys' fees and an affidavit from counsel that complies with the requirements of ARCAP 21(c)(2). Further, we also award Morse her costs on appeal contingent upon her compliance with ARCAP 21.
Although the court also denied Petramala's application for leave to file a lawsuit appealing the Department of Health Services' denial of his request that it pay for his moving expenses, he does not challenge that ruling on appeal.
Although the court also denied Petramala's application for leave to file a lawsuit appealing the Department of Health Services' denial of his request that it pay for his moving expenses, he does not challenge that ruling on appeal.
We note the parties completed the briefing in this case before we filed that decision.
A "[h]ealth care system" is defined as "any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants." Ariz. Const. art 27, § 2(D)(3).
--------
________________________
PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: ________________________
ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge
________________________
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge