Opinion ID: 2583900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CAPA was properly appointed as Gunter's guardian/conservator with authority over his claims seeking to overturn the C & R.

Text: Gunter has a long history of guardianship and conservatorship proceedings, and the superior court's order appointing a guardian/conservator in September 2001 relies on that history. Though guardianship and conservatorship proceedings are quite similar, there are separate statutes governing each appointment. Alaska Statute 13.26.165, which governs the appointment of conservators, provides that: [u]pon petition and after notice and hearing in accordance with the provisions of AS 13.26.165-13.26.315, the court may appoint a conservator or make other protective order for cause as follows: .... (2) appointment of a conservator or other protective order may be made in relation to the estate and affairs of a person if the court determines that (A) the person is unable to manage the person's property and affairs effectively for reasons such as mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability ... and (B) the person has property which will be wasted or dissipated unless proper management is provided ... Likewise, AS 13.26.113(e), which governs the appointment of guardians, provides that after a hearing, [i]f it is found that the respondent is able to perform some, but not all functions necessary to care for the respondent, and alternatives to guardianship are not feasible or adequate to provide for the needs of the respondent, the court may appoint a partial guardian, but may not appoint a full guardian. The partial guardian's authority is limited to the powers and duties respecting the ward enumerated in the court order. [23] It is apparent from the record that CAPA's authority to dismiss Gunter's claims for him was properly established in a manner that protected Gunter's rights under either the guardianship or conservatorship statutes. In its September 2001 order, the superior court modified Gunter's existing guardianship order to make CAPA Gunter's temporary, partial guardian/conservator [f]or the purposes of advising and assisting Mr. Gunter in all administrative proceedings before the [board]. The superior court order specifically granted CAPA the authority to allow those proceedings to continue, engage in settlement negotiations and enter into binding settlement agreements on Mr. Gunter's behalf, or dismiss those actions on behalf of Mr. Gunter where CAPA determines that such action is in his best interests. The superior court held a hearing, at which Gunter was represented by an attorney and had the benefit of a court-appointed visitor. [24] The superior court based its appointment of CAPA, for the limited purpose of protecting Gunter's workers' compensation benefits, on the complexity of these proceedings and the severity of Mr. Gunter's injury. The determination that these proceedings were too complex for Gunter to manage on account of his brain injury is supported by a significant amount of evidence establishing the severity of Gunter's injury. Gunter himself establishes that his injury has left him unable to understand the C & R, stating that [a]ll I understand about [the] compensation rate is work me for life. I have not understood at all compensation rate. The superior court cannot be said to have committ[ed] clear error in accepting the evidence as clear and convincing proof of [Gunter's] inability to manage his property and affairs effectively. [25] Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in appointing CAPA to protect Gunter's workers' compensation benefits. [26] Therefore, Gunter does not present a colorable claim that the superior court erred by granting CAPA the authority to dismiss Gunter's challenge to the C & R.