# In Re Fiori

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · January 17, 1995 · 438 Pa. Super. 610

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698041

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Daniel Joseph FIORI, an Adjudged Incompetent. Appeal of PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 17, 1995
- **Citations:** 438 Pa. Super. 610; 652 A.2d 1350; 1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 70
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cavanaugh
- **Judges:** Rowley, Cavanaugh, Wieand, McEwen, Cirillo, Olszewski, Beck, Kelly, Popovich, Statements
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698041

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “that no legal proceedings are necessary in the great majority of cases involving the termination of life sustaining treatment to persons in [the instant patient’s] condition,” namely, a persistent vegetative state

## Opinion text

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting.
The tragic plight of Daniel Joseph Fiori and his mother, Rosemarie Sherman, presents issues which challenge the competence of the judicial process. We are confounded because the issue presented is one where law, metaphysics and theology intersect, thus, overtaxing our poor powers to provide a proper solution.
While I esteem the sensitive and reasoned dispositions espoused by my learned colleagues, I find myself in agreement with the position of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and would adopt a position which coincides with his.
Which is to say that I would find that the court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for Mr. Fiori, who, after all, has his continued human existence as the subject matter of *673 this litigation. I would hold that this was basic and fundamental error which transcends the strictures of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974). I would further hold that life sustaining medical care and treatment should not be withdrawn absent clear and convincing evidence of Mr. Fiori’s intent to terminate life-sustaining procedures. I would reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with these requirements.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698041. Public record. Not legal advice.