experts MOVANTS' experts examine toexamine to RUBY RUBY PETERSON, PETERSON, despite despite the the
fact thatone fact that suchexpert onesuch expert probate wasaaprobate was regular, regular, DR. MARC DR.MARC KUNIK, KLTNIK, RUSS RUSS JJONES ONES aadvocated dvocated againstMOVANTS against MOVANTSbeing evenon being even thepremises on the premises ofofSILVERADO SILVERADO SENIOR SENIOR LIVING- LIVING -
suddenly suddenly nnot ot moved byPLAINTIFFS' movedby PLAINTIFFS' "denial"of "denial" of her condition, hercondition, whichJONES which AND JONES AND
DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS repeatedly repeatedly accused. accused. Why wouldan Why would impartial animpartial appointee appointee whoisislooking who looking out for outfor RUBY'S bestinterests RUBY'S best beopposed interests be PLA1NT1FFS' toPLAINTIFFS' opposed to having having theopportunity the observe toobserve opportunity to and and
accepttheir accept their m other's mother's testing testing and condition, andcondition, but not DEFENDANTS'. but not DEFENDANTS'.
13.IInnfact, 13. fact,this wasone this was ofthe one of thefew statements few truthful statements DRMERKL DR made MERKL made oonceming concerning RUBY RUBY
PETERSON PETERSON while testifying. while testifying. After After 99 months ofattempting months of attempting to simply to simply hhave aveRUBY RUBYseenby seen one by one
ofPLAINTIFFS' of EXPERTS PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS // DOCTORS DOCTORS forthesole for purpose the sole purpose ofdetermining of whether determining whether RUBY RUBY haddementia had dementiabyaacredible by crediblemedical medical professional professional couldbelieve, theycould they PLAINTIFFS believe, PLAINTIFFS immediately amended immediately amended theirppleadings their leadingsto reflect the to SinceD same.Since the same. ecember December of2013, of 2013,
Silverado Appx. 0532 No. 1-15-567-CV 1621 14.PLAINTIFFS 14. PLAINTIFFSsoughtto sought theirown havetheir tohave physician ownphysician examine examine RUBY RUBY andease and theirworries easetheir worriesthat that
shewas she beinginappropriately notbeing wasnot inappropriately drugged drugged inways in thatmight waysthat mightmake makeher herappear appear demented demented or or
exacerbate exacerbate any existing any existing dementia. dementia. Thisbelief This belief was unreasonable notunreasonable wasnot giventhe given thewidespread widespread
pandemic pandemic of of inappropriate psychotropic psychotropic drugging drugging oftheelderly of the elderly iinnlong termcare long term facilities carefacilities andPLAINTIFFS' and observations PLAINTIFFS' observations ofRUBY of RUBY excessively excessively drugged, drugged, giventhat particularly given that
CAROLANN CAROL ANNMANLEY andDAVID MANLEY and PETERSON DAVID PETERSON admittedRUBY admitted RUBYwas over-drugged wasover-drugged at at
REMINGTON REMINGTON andstated preference and stated a preference forSILVERADO for SILVERADO because because theyhadcreative ways ttooE they had creative ways
forcibly forcibly drug RUBY drug RUBY ifsheresisted. if SeeTranscript of Temporary Injunction she resisted. See Injunction Hearing.
15.Despitethe 15. Despite the fact fact that that MOVANTS MOVANTSamended thetherelief amended sought repeatedly relief sought repeatedly to
streamline the streamline expedited trial the expedited trial set forNovember setfor 17,2014, November17, 2014,MOVANTS MOVANTS appropriatelypled appropriately pledthat thatDEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS violated violated STATE STATE ANDFEDERAL AND LAWs FEDERAL LAW
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL mandatesexpressedin mandates expressed inthe and 14th the 1", 5th ,, 7th , ,and ·EAmendments, Amendments, ArticleI andV, Article I and theAnti-Retaliatory V, the Anti-Retaliatory ofTitles provisionsof provisions andIII3 of Titles112 and
See,e.g., See, CityofMesquite e.g.,City Aladdin's v. Aladdin's of Mesquite v. Castle,Inc., Castle, Inc.,455U.S.283,293,71L.Ed.2d152,102 455 U.S. 283, 293, 71 L. Ed. 2d 152, 102 S.Ct.1070 S. (1982) Ct. 1070 (1982) (acknowledging (acknowledging thatthe that theTexas