Family Seeks New Trial After Loss in Grace Schara Case, Claiming Judge Bias

The Schara family filed a lawsuit against Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin, over the death of their daughter, Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who contracted COVID-19 in October 2021. The family alleged that hospital staff placed Grace on a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order without family consent and administered what the family described as a “lethal cocktail” of drugs that led to her death.

The hospital denied wrongdoing. In June 2025, a jury rejected the family’s claims, ruling in favor of Ascension and the involved physicians and nurses.

The Motion for a New Trial: Alleged Judicial Bias

Following the verdict, the Schara family’s attorney filed a motion requesting a new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of bias by the presiding judge, Mark McGinnis.

According to the motion:

• After trial, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay more than $50,000 in costs, which the family contends was improper.

• The family claims they only learned several months after trial of prior public criticisms by the judge of the local newspaper, the Appleton Post-Crescent. They say the judge’s previous comments created a personal bias against the paper — and by extension, against them, because the family gave an interview to the Post-Crescent two weeks before trial.

• The motion asserts that two weeks before trial, the court learned of the family’s interview with the newspaper and reacted by denying all of the family’s motions in limine without allowing argument. The family claims this decision was influenced by the court’s “personal bias.”

Legal Standards and Implications

For a new trial to be granted based on bias, the moving party must demonstrate that the judge had a personal bias or prejudice that undermined impartiality. The motion notes that the discovery of the judge’s prior public remarks constitutes “new evidence” that may justify reconsideration.

The allegation that the court ordered the family to pay costs is also significant: courts may award costs to the prevailing party, but plaintiffs argue the order was improper and tainted by bias.

If the motion is granted, a new trial would mean revisiting issues of medical malpractice, informed consent regarding the DNR designation, and potential wrongful death claims.

Wider Context: Medical-Malpractice and Disability Rights

The case has drawn national attention because it involves a patient with Down syndrome, an alleged DNR without explicit family consent, and treatment decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors raise broader questions about patient rights, disability protections, and hospital protocols during public-health emergencies.

Grace was admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and was treated with sedatives including Precedex, lorazepam, and morphine to manage agitation from breathing equipment. She was placed on DNR status before her death one week later. The hospital maintained that her respiratory failure and lung damage made resuscitation or intubation futile.

The family has since become advocates for medical transparency and the rights of disabled patients. They argue that hospitals must be held accountable when families are excluded from life-and-death decisions.

Current Status and What to Watch

• The motion for a new trial based on judicial bias is pending before the court.

• If the motion fails, the family may still appeal the verdict on broader legal grounds.

• The case continues to influence debate over how hospitals handle DNR orders, informed consent, and treatment for patients with disabilities.

• The matter also highlights concerns about judicial accountability, courtroom fairness, and the balance between judicial discretion and due process.

The Broader Debate

This case resonates beyond one family’s tragedy. It touches on the growing tension between medical authority and patient autonomy, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospitals faced resource strain and emergency protocols. The Scharas contend that such conditions cannot justify unilateral DNR decisions, especially when they affect vulnerable patients.

If the allegations of judicial bias are substantiated, the case could also become a flashpoint for reform in Wisconsin’s judicial ethics oversight, especially regarding judges’ interactions with local media and litigants.

Final Thought

Whether or not a new trial is granted, the Schara family’s case underscores two fundamental issues: how far hospitals can go in making end-of-life decisions without family consent, and whether the courts adjudicating such cases are truly impartial. The answers could have lasting implications for medical ethics, disability rights, and public trust in the justice system.

Please Support Our Sponsors:

American Alternative Assets: Uncover the truth behind market turbulence. The Bellweather Signal reveals 7 hidden economic indicators flashing red right now. Get the free report and learn how to protect your savings with gold and silver. Download it today at https://www.CloutGold.com

NativePath: 7 Reasons Why Men & Women Over 50 Are Adding This Single Ingredient To Their Morning Routine. Visit https://getnativepath.com/DailyClout to Learn More…

Clarke For City Council: “If you live in District 46, every dollar you give to Athena Clarke’s City Council campaign will be matched eight-to-one — and if you live elsewhere, your donation still directly fuels her fight to bring real change to NYC.” https://contribute.nycvotes.org/campaigns/athenaclarke/contributions/new

Discover LegiSector! Stay up-to-date on issues you care about with LegiSector’s state-of-the-art summarizing capabilities and customizable portals. Try now for a free trial…Learn more at https://www.legisector.com