• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Grammatical error in DPOA

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

midad8

Member
I have created a Medical DPOA and assigned two joint agents/patient advocates who are supposed to act together in agreement. There is a provision in there that addresses how disputes will be handled. The document was created by modifying an existing DPOA that assigns power to a single agent/patient advocate. Thus, references to the agent/patient advocate had to be changed to agents/patient advocates. However, one sentence that adresses the use and dissemination of medical information was missed and not modified: "It is understood that the agent to whom this authorization is given has my permission to use and disseminate this information in my agent's sole discretion."

My question is... if the rest of the document is grammatically correct and are consistent with the assignment of power to two joint agents, how will this one sentence be legally interpreted? Is "agent" still understood as being both agents and "sole discretion" still applies to both agents needing to acting together, or does this one sentence becomes an exception and give each individual agent the power to act on his/her own concerning medical information without needing agreement from the other agent?

If it can legally be interpreted either way, will the agents be allowed to decide on their own how to interpret it (which is acceptable since it applies to only to medical information and not actual life/death decisions), or does the intent need be clarified upfront on the document? If it needs clarification, is it sufficient to just handwrite in the corrections/clarifying words and initial the margin even though the document has already been notarized, or does a brand new document needs to be created and notarized?

Sorry for all the questions. I'm just trying to figure out the best course of action that requires the least amount of redo. Thanks for your advice!
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What US state?
The singular of "agents" is "agent", so I don't believe that the sentence is in error, so long as you wish to allow "either" (vs. "both") to "use and disseminate this information".
 

midad8

Member
State is MI.

The initial intent was it to mean "both". But if you are saying that because this one sentence mistakenly uses the singular "agent", then it means "either" for this one particular power, I supposed that's acceptable too as it only relates to how medical information is used and not actual medical decisions. I am just wondering if the interpretation of "either" is a legal interpretation of that sentence, or it is still going to be questionable if the agents bring it court.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Was your intention for both parties to have to act together on every power given?
 

midad8

Member
Yes, initial intent was to have both parties act together on every power given. Leaving out the "s" in "agent" was a mistake. I'm just wondering what legal implications this mistake has before trying to correct it, if that is even necessary.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Yes, initial intent was to have both parties act together on every power given. Leaving out the "s" in "agent" was a mistake. I'm just wondering what legal implications this mistake has before trying to correct it, if that is even necessary.
Unfortunately, no one on this forum can analyze contracts. That is the practice of law and outside the scope of this forum. You will either need to find an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction to offer you a legal opinion or, if it is possible to change the contracts now, you can do that (whether the change is absolutely necessary or not).
 

midad8

Member
Yes, that would be the cleanest way to do it. But the document is for someone else, and it is hard to get her back to resign and schedule with a notary. So, I am trying to avoid going through all the motions again if we don't have to.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
You need to have "someone else" take care of this matter. If YOU created the document, then YOU were practicing law without a license.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Yes, that would be the cleanest way to do it. But the document is for someone else, and it is hard to get her back to resign and schedule with a notary. So, I am trying to avoid going through all the motions again if we don't have to.
It will be less expensive to make the changes even if it is hard to get documents re-signed.

And I agree with Zigner.
 

midad8

Member
You need to have "someone else" take care of this matter. If YOU created the document, then YOU were practicing law without a license.
I am not sure what you mean by "practicing law without a license". In my case, a DPOA (my own) created by a lawyer was modified to have different agents for a different patient, and was signed in front of a notary and witnesses. Isn't that a legal document? Even if it was some MI template I got off Nolo, wouldn't still be legal if I read it, understood it, and signed it in front of a notary and witnesses?
 

midad8

Member
It will be less expensive to make the changes even if it is hard to get documents re-signed.

And I agree with Zigner.
Both of you are probably right. Just need to correct the documents to be crystal clear and re-sign, or risk expensive litigation later on if the agents challenges what that sentence really mean.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I am not sure what you mean by "practicing law without a license". In my case, a DPOA (my own) created by a lawyer was modified to have different agents for a different patient, and was signed in front of a notary and witnesses. Isn't that a legal document? Even if it was some MI template I got off Nolo, wouldn't still be legal if I read it, understood it, and signed it in front of a notary and witnesses?
If this is a document you created for yourself to use, it is legal to do that. That is not practicing law. If you create it for someone else to use, it would be.

Changing the documents now potentially could avoid legal headaches later, as inconvenient as it might be to get the documents re-signed.
 

midad8

Member
I guess I am still unclear what "practicing law" means. If she took my document, which was created by a lawyer, and changed names and other wording to her liking, is that legal? What if I helped her a little bit on the wording, but ultimately it is still a document she fully understands and makes it her own? Is that still legal?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I guess I am still unclear what "practicing law" means. If she took my document, which was created by a lawyer, and changed names and other wording to her liking, is that legal? What if I helped her a little bit on the wording, but ultimately it is still a document she fully understands and makes it her own? Is that still legal?
If SHE does it, then you're not practicing law, nor is she. However, once YOU take it upon yourself to make changes to the wording, then you are practicing law without a license.

SHE should get her document changed...YOU have already caused enough problems.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top