## Facts

- Jeffers J. Tschumy, an incapacitated adult, lived in a nursing facility and was later hospitalized and placed on life-sustaining treatment, including a ventilator.
- In 2007, a district court appointed Joseph Vogel as Tschumy’s guardian and granted him statutory authority to consent to necessary medical treatment under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-313(c)(4)(i), without a specific limitation regarding life support.
- In 2012, after Tschumy’s medical deterioration, physicians and the guardian agreed continued life support was no longer in Tschumy’s best interests.
- Abbott Northwestern Hospital sought a court order authorizing Vogel and the hospital to withdraw life support.
- Vogel argued no additional court authorization was required because his guardianship powers already included medical-consent authority.
- The district court ruled that a guardian could not direct removal of life support without prior court approval but nevertheless authorized withdrawal; life support was removed and Tschumy died.
- After Tschumy’s death and Vogel’s discharge as guardian, the district court issued a written order reaffirming its view that prior court approval was required.
- The court of appeals reached the merits despite mootness concerns and held a guardian with statutory medical-consent authority could consent to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment absent an order limiting that authority.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal was moot due to the ward’s death and the guardian’s discharge, and, if technically moot, whether the court should decide it as an important, recurring public issue.
2. Whether a guardian’s statutory power to consent to “necessary medical treatment” under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-313(c)(4)(i) includes consenting to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment without separate court approval when all interested parties agree withdrawal is in the ward’s best interests and the guardianship order does not limit that power.

## Decision

- The court held that, although the matter was technically moot, it was functionally justiciable and presented an important statewide public issue warranting decision.
- The court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The court held that, unless limited by the guardianship order, the statutory authority to consent to necessary medical treatment includes the authority to consent to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment when all interested parties agree it is in the ward’s best interests.
- The court rejected a categorical requirement of prior court approval for withdrawal of life support in every guardianship case.

## Legal Principles

- A technically moot case may be decided when it is functionally justiciable and raises an important public issue likely to recur yet evade review.
- Under Minn. Stat. § 524.5-313(c)(4)(i), a guardian’s medical-consent authority, unless limited by court order, extends to decisions to discontinue treatment when continued treatment is no longer “necessary” in light of the ward’s best interests.
- A guardianship order may restrict a guardian’s statutory powers; absent such limits, the default statutory grant governs.
- Court supervision remains available through petitions by interested persons challenging a guardian’s medical decision, making individualized judicial review available without requiring mandatory pre-approval in all cases.
- The holding is limited to circumstances where all interested parties agree withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is in the ward’s best interests.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that it could decide the technically moot appeal and held that a guardian with unrestricted statutory medical-consent authority may consent to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment without obtaining prior court authorization when all interested parties agree the decision serves the ward’s best interests.


In re Guardianship of Tschumy, 853 N.W.2d 728 (Minn. 2014)