Appointment of a conservator & a guardian for a legally incapacitated adult; Sufficiency of the evidence; “Incapacitated individual”; MCL 700.1105(a); MCL 700.5401(3)(a) & (b), In re Estate of Schroeder; In re Conservatorship of Bittner; Right to an independent medical evaluation; MCL 700.5406(2) & 700.5304(2); Admission of a doctor’s report; MCL 700.5304(1) & (3); MCR 5.405(A)(1); Lack of cross-examination; Lesser remedy than full conservatorship & guardianship; MCL 700.5306(3); MCL 700.5407(1)

The court held that the probate court did not err in admitting a doctor’s report or deprive appellant (AS) of her right to secure an independent medical evaluation. Further, it was not responsible for her “failure to avail herself of the right to secure an independent medical evaluation or to call the doctor as a witness.” It also did not clearly err in “finding clear and convincing evidence that AS suffered from serious cognitive and behavioral limitations that necessitated appointment of a guardian and a conservator.” Finally, it “appropriately considered and rejected the possibility of lesser remedies.” AS was 86 years old when she was hospitalized after she ran out of her home “in a state of undress. She was discharged to a skilled nursing facility that” successfully petitioned for the appointment of a guardian and a conservator for her. On appeal, the court agreed with her that she had “a right to secure an independent medical evaluation, but” disagreed with her assertion that the probate court deprived her of it. The “probate court granted an adjournment so that AS could obtain an evaluation, then granted another adjournment for unrelated reasons, and finally granted a third adjournment of 56 days, which was longer than the 45 days that AS requested, so that AS could obtain another evaluation from a different evaluator.” These accommodations protected her “right to secure an independent evaluation[.]” The court also rejected her evidentiary challenges. As to the sufficiency of the evidence that she needed a guardian and a conservator, she dismissed “the evidence as merely suggesting a propensity for clutter and the kind of orneriness that might be expected of advanced age, but AS in fact hoarded rotten food, which goes beyond mere clutter, and accused various people of conspiring against her, which goes beyond mere orneriness. Therefore, the probate court did not clearly err by finding clear and convincing evidence that AS was an ‘incapacitated individual’ under MCL 700.1105(a), or by finding that appointment of a guardian was ‘necessary as a means of providing continuing care and supervision’ of AS under MCL 700.5306(1).” As to the conservatorship, the evidence also showed she “was ‘unable’ to perform the tasks necessary to ‘effectively’ care for her assets.” Affirmed.