Source: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Terri_wolfson.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 01:12:22+00:00

Document:
Re: Terry Schiavo - Jay Wolfson, Prof at Univ. South Florida?
Dr. Jay Wolfson of Tampa is being considered by the circuit courts for appointment as Guardian ad Litem to Terri Schindler-Schiavo. Dr. Wolfson has already publicly stated his objection to Terri's Law and, therefore, may have a settled bias in the matter. The suggestion of bias is here (PDF Format).
TAMPA, Fla. -- A judge appointed a University of South Florida professor Friday to conduct an independent investigation of the case of a severely brain-damaged woman at the center of a right-to-die legal case.
Jay Wolfson, a University of South Florida professor and expert on health care financing, will report his recommendations to Gov. Jeb Bush and recommend whether the stay the governor enacted to keep Terri Schiavo alive should be lifted or allowed to remain.
Pinellas Circuit Court Judge David Demers appointed Wolfson despite the objections of Bob and Mary Schindler that Wolfson was biased against the newly enacted law that allowed Bush to intervene in their daughter's case earlier this month.
Wolfson made comments about the law last week during an interview with a local television station, and the parents took that to indicate his opposition to the governor's actions. Demers said he did not find those comments to be biased, but even if they had been he believes Wolfson could be fair and impartial.
"This law raises the question, perhaps even if you do have a living will, if there is a family member who has a legitimate concern about the application of the will, could that concern translate into ignoring the living will," Wolfson said in an interview with WFTS on Wednesday.
George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, said he believes the order Demers signed "reflects a little bit of puzzlement on the party of the judiciary on the involvement of the governor."
Attorneys for Bob and Mary Schindler did not return telephone calls for comment Friday. Wolfson also did not return calls seeking comment.
Terri Schiavo has been in a persistent vegetative state for more than a decade and doctors have said there is no hope for her recovery. She suffered severe brain damage when her heart stopped due to a chemical imbalance.
Her feeding tube was disconnected Oct. 15 at the direction of her husband who said he was carrying out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially. Her feeding tube was reconnected six days later when the Florida Legislature and Bush sided with her parents, who believe their daughter has some consciousness and could be rehabilitated.
Michael Schiavo had no objection to the appointment of Wolfson to the role of guardian ad litem, an independent position sometimes used in such cases to give judges neutral information about an incapacitated person.
In Terri Schiavo's case, Wolfson will not represent her interests and he is limited in reporting to the governor the value of giving Schiavo tests to see if she can be rehabilitated and summarizing the decade-long legal battle between her husband and parents. Demers ordered Wolfson to report to the governor in 30 days, but said the deadline could be extended if needed.
A guardian ad litem has not been appointed in the case since 1999 when a Clearwater attorney appointed by the court recommended that Michael Schiavo not be allowed to disconnect his wife's feeding tube.
At the time, the attorney said Michael Schiavo's statements that his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially could not be corroborated by other witnesses and that Michael Schiavo stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars if his wife died.
Since then, two relatives of Michael Schiavo have testified Terri Schiavo also told them she did not want to be kept alive artificially. Terri Schiavo's money, which was in the form of a medical trust fund financed with proceeds from a malpractice lawsuit, has been depleted.
The new guardian ad litem appointment was made possible in the law passed by lawmakers and approved by Bush this month. Demers said in his order that if the law is found to be unconstitutional, Wolfson is to cease his work.
Felos and the American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs challenging the constitutionality of the governor's action this week. The state is expected to respond on Monday.
Wolfson is a professor of law and medicine at Stetson University.
Bob and Mary Schindler, the parents of Terri Schiavo, are worried about the court-appointed guardian assigned to their daughters case.
The Schindlers have filed a suggestion of bias against Dr. Jay Wolfson, a professor of health and law at Stetson University. Wolfson also works for the College of Public Health at Florida State University and the College of Medicine at the University of South Florida.
The Schindlers motion argues that Wolfson, who practices both medicine and law, should not be appointed as Terris guardian because hes already made his opinion on the case known publicly.
State lawmakers past 'Terri's Law' last week.
Last week the Florida Legislature teamed up with Governor Jeb Bush on Terris Law. The guidelines of the law call for the Schindlers and Terris husband and guardian Michael Schiavo five days to come up with an independent guardian in the case.
If they cant a Pinellas County Court judge will appoint Wolfson.
Meanwhile, Michael Schiavos attorney, George Felos, says he will file a brief on Monday, challenging the constitutionality of Terris Law. The legislation was passed last week and allowed Governor Bush to step in and order Terris feeding tube reinserted.
TAMPA - A secretary at the University of South Florida who says she was injured during a faculty fracas just before Christmas filed a civil suit Thursday against one of the professors involved.
Jay Wolfson, a USF professor and member of the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, threatened secretary Yolanda Santos, grabbed her and jumped on her back - all in a struggle over Santos' personal tape recorder, the suit charges.
"This is something one would expect to read about in grade school," said Santos' attorney, Steve Yerrid. "It's ironic in a place of higher learning that the very basics we learn as children were cast aside."
"We're comfortable that Dr. Wolfson did nothing inappropriate that day," said Tracy Sheehan, one of the lawyers representing him.
Santos' story is nothing but "a fabrication" designed to fuel a bitter faculty turf war at USF, she said.
The suit claims that Wolfson's actions amounted to assault and battery, false imprisonment and negligence and asks for $300,000 in punitive damages.
State prosecutors and USF officials are still investigating the Dec. 17 incident, which occurred at a faculty meeting in the Department of Health Policy and Management in the College of Public Health.
Details of the incident have been sketchy.
Department chairman James Studnicki, who along with Santos filed a criminal complaint, has declined to speak with reporters about it. Wolfson and interim public health dean John Skinner, who were both at the meeting, have said there was a lot of yelling that day, but nothing violent.
Santos' lawsuit offers different version of events. The meeting, which Santos was there to record, began with an argument between Studnicki and Wolfson. When Studnicki tried to adjourn the meeting and asked Santos to leave with him, Wolfson grabbed her by the arm and thrust her back into her chair, the suit says. Santos said she was frightened by Wolfson's yelling and threats.
A few moments later, Studnicki again asked Santos to leave the room and to take her tape recorder with her. When Santos reached for the recorder, Wolfson "jumped on her back and reached over her in an effort of wrestle the records from her possession," the suit says. "As a result of (Wolfson's) unexpected attack, (Santos) was violently pushed headfirst into the chair upon which the recorder had been resting and as a result sustained personal injuries."
The Provost Office has asked three professors to decide whether faculty rules were broken.
Opinion filed March 25, 1998.
Yolanda Santos appeals a final order granting summary judgment for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. We conclude that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for State Farm because the exclusions in State Farms policies bar liability.
Santos was employed as an office assistant for the University of South Florida College of Public Health. She worked for the chairperson of the department, Jay Studnicki, Ph.D. It was her job to take minutes at department meetings. At a department meeting on December 17, 1993, Dr. Studnicki adjourned the meeting and Santos attempted to leave the meeting with him. Jay Wolfson, Ph.D., a department member and the insured, allegedly insisted she stay at the meeting, grabbed her, pushed her back into her chair, jumped on her back and attempted to wrestle a tape recorder from her possession. Santos was injured as a result of the incident.
Dr. Wolfson has a homeowner's policy with State Farm which excludes coverage for "bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any insured." He also has an umbrella policy which excludes coverage for "any loss caused by your business operations." Both policies define business to mean "a trade, profession or occupation." The trial court correctly found that the exclusions in both policies precluded coverage for Santoss injuries.
Regarding the homeowners policy, Santos concedes in her brief that her injuries might have arisen out of the business pursuits of Dr. Wolfson and the exclusion, therefore, might apply. We conclude that it does apply. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Miller, 549 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), Dr. Miller and Dr. Vinsant were involved in a confrontation, and Dr. Miller pulled on the stethoscope draped around Dr. Vinsants neck. Dr. Miller had a homeowners policy which excluded coverage for injuries arising out of business pursuits of the insured. The Third District Court of Appeal held that coverage was excluded because the injury primarily arose out of a business pursuit of Dr. Miller. See Rodriguez v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1976); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Here, Santoss injuries arose out of the business pursuits of Dr. Wolfson. Dr. Wolfson attended the department meeting as a department member. Santos testified in her deposition that Wolfson told her that, on behalf of the department, he was instructing her to stay at the meeting and take minutes. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that coverage was precluded pursuant to the business pursuits exclusion in the homeowners policy.
We also conclude that the "business operations" exclusion in State Farms umbrella policy bars coverage for Santoss injuries. In State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Geary, 699 F. Supp. 756 (N.D. Calif. 1987), the court found that the insureds conduct was so inextricably entwined with her employment that the exclusion clearly applied, and the court did not attempt to define the outer limits of the business operations exclusion. Here, as in Geary, we conclude that Dr. Wolfsons conduct is so inextricably entwined with his employment as a member of the department that the exclusion clearly applies.
Dr. Wolfsons actions in participating in the department meeting, not the specific act of committing a battery, constitute the activity he was engaged in for purposes of the policy. In Landis v. Allstate Insurance Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1989), the Florida Supreme Court addressed a business pursuits exclusion in a homeowners policy, which also defined business as a trade, profession, or occupation. In Landis, the defendants operated a licensed child care facility. Several parents brought an action relating to allegations that the defendants sexually battered the children while under their care. The parents did not dispute that the babysitting service constituted a business pursuit within the meaning of the exclusion. Nevertheless, they argued that the act of molesting children was a nonbusiness activity. The Florida Supreme Court held that the activity of babysitting in general, not the specific act of molesting children, was the activity the defendants were engaged in when the injuries occurred. Therefore, the business pursuits exclusion applied. Here, because Santoss injuries stem from the business operations of Dr. Wolfson, the exclusion in the umbrella policy bars coverage.
Accordingly, we affirm the final order granting summary judgment for State Farm.
BLUE, A.C.J., Dissents with opinion.
Although I agree with the majority in affirming the summary judgment as to claims against the homeowner's policy, I disagree with the ruling as to the umbrella policy and therefore, respectfully dissent.
First, as to the umbrella policy, the trial court's ruling failed to properly address the intentional acts exclusion of that policy. Even though the policy excludes intentional acts, it specifically insures against assault and battery. Therefore, the policy is ambiguous and not subject to disposition by summary judgment. See, e.g., Purrelli v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 698 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Second, I believe there is a question of fact as to whether the policy language excludes Dr. Wolfson's actions from coverage. The exclusion in the umbrella policy reads, "for any loss caused by your business operations or arising out of your business property." Clearly Santos's injuries in no way involved "business property." Although the incident happened in a business setting and the fact finder could determine it was therefore "caused by your business operations," there is also support for the argument that the doctor departed from his "business operations" when he perpetrated a physical attack on Santos. This is a factual dispute which bars summary judgment as a matter of law.
Because I conclude that the ambiguous policy language and the disputed facts bar summary judgment under the umbrella policy, I dissent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.