Nancy S. Stillwagon v. State of New Hampshire & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0073, Nancy S. Stillwagon v. State of New
Hampshire & a., the court on January 30, 2015, issued the
following order:

We grant the State’s motion to strike exhibits from the plaintiff’s reply
brief appendices. To the extent that the plaintiff, in her objection, requests
that we order the State “to produce the R.S.A. 161-F administrative record,” the
request is denied. Having considered the briefs and record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The plaintiff, Nancy Stillwagon, appeals orders of the Superior Court
(O’Neill, J.) dismissing her complaint against twenty-one defendants. In the
complaint, she asserted fifteen causes of action arising out of: (1) her
relationship with an individual who is now deceased; (2) statements allegedly
made concerning that relationship; (3) an investigation by the New Hampshire
Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Elderly and Adult
Services into allegations that she exploited the decedent, and a determination
that the allegations were founded, see RSA 161-F:46 (2014); (4) guardianship
proceedings involving the decedent, see RSA chapter 464-A (2004 & Supp.
2014); and (5) the decedent’s hospitalization and medical treatment. In
dismissing the complaint, the trial court concluded that: (1) the plaintiff lacked
standing to assert certain claims belonging to the decedent; (2) certain
defendants associated with the State of New Hampshire were entitled to
immunity; (3) certain of the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred; (4) certain of
the statements upon which the plaintiff premised liability were privileged; (5)
one of the defendants had not been properly served; and (6) none of the causes
of action stated a claim upon which relief could be granted against any of the
defendants. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the complaint asserted valid
causes of action, that all of the defendants violated her state constitutional
rights to equal protection and due process, and that most of the defendants
failed to comply with her document discovery requests or to file a counter-
affidavit in response to her motion for summary judgment.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___ (decided September 12,
2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s orders, the plaintiff’s
challenges to them, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2