In March 1996, Harun Fountain, a minor, was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range by a playmate. As a result of his injuries, including the loss of his right eye, Fountain required extensive lifesaving medical services from a variety of medical services providers, including Yale Diagnostic Radiology. Unfortunately, Fountain did not survive the wound. Fountain’s mother, Vernetta Tucker, as Fountain’s guardian, sued the boy who had shot him, a settlement was reached, and funds were placed in the estate established on Fountain’s behalf under the supervision of the Probate Court. Tucker was designated the fiduciary of that estate. Yale billed Tucker for $17,694 in services, but the bill went unpaid, and in 1999 Yale obtained a collection judgment against her. In January 2001, all of Tucker’s debts, including the judgment in favor of Yale, were discharged pursuant to an order of the Bankruptcy Court. Following the discharge of Tucker’s debts, Yale moved in the Probate Court for payment of $17,694 from Fountain’s estate. What arguments will Yale make to support its application for payment? What arguments can Fountain’s estate assert in its defense? Which party will prevail? [Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of Harun Fountain, 838 A.2d 179 (Conn. 2004).]