Opinion ID: 2077530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Scope of Actual Authority

Text: The trial court in the present case concluded that Bradley had conferred on Dickerson actual authority to alter Mr. Bradley's legal relations. The trial court's factual findings do not, however, support such a broad conclusion. The trial court based its conclusion on its finding that Dickerson signed and deposited [Bradley's] checks, admitted him to various hospitals and nursing homes, and even signed documents allowing for vaccinations and blood transfusions, all for ... Bradley's benefit. The trial court also noted that Dickerson frequently represented that she was Mr. Bradley's power of attorney and proceeded to make all necessary medical decisions for Mr. Bradley during the period from 1997 to October 2004. By way of example, the trial court noted a number of times during that time period when Dickerson designated herself as Bradley's legal representative or power of attorney [13] when dealing with various health care providers, including Respondent. These facts do suggest that Bradley conferred on Dickerson  directly or through acquiescence  actual authority to make some decisions on his behalf. Most of the decisions, however, concerned Bradley's medical treatments or his admission into medical facilities. Other decisions that Dickerson made on Bradley's behalf concerned Bradley's finances. Indeed, on repeated occasions, Dickerson held herself out as Bradley's financial power of attorney or stated that she had authority to manage, use or control [Bradley's] income, funds and/or assets. This limited range of acts performed on Bradley's behalf suggest that, at most, Bradley may have conferred on Dickerson the authority to make health care and financial decisions on his behalf, but no more than that. [14]