The legal fight over Wendy Williams’ guardianship has taken a contentious turn, as new reports claim she must remain under court-appointed care following medical exams.
Her attorney, on the other hand, insists the alleged diagnosis is false and potentially part of a ploy to keep her “trapped.”
According to legal documents obtained by PEOPLE, the talk show icon recently underwent a battery of medical and neuropsychological tests, including brain scans.
Doctors allegedly concluded that Williams still suffers from severe neurological issues and reaffirmed her 2023 diagnoses of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and aphasia, conditions that affect cognitive function, speech, and behavior.
The outlet reports that Williams’ guardian, Sabrina Morrissey, has asked the court to maintain the guardianship at least until November 5.
But Joe Tacopina, Williams’ attorney, is calling the leaked results “false,” telling TMZ they were spread “by a party with a vested interest in keeping Wendy trapped under this excessive and restrictive guardianship.”
He also slammed the alleged leak as “a total violation of Wendy’s rights as a human being” and challenged anyone making the claims to produce the actual medical report and testify under oath.
“Where is the actual medical report supporting this leak? And who is the doctor willing to go under oath and face cross-examination by me so the truth can be exposed?” Tacopina said.
Sources told TMZ that neither Williams nor Tacopina have seen the report referenced by PEOPLE.
Morrissey’s court filings also reportedly request a delay in litigation over Williams’ ongoing lawsuit against A&E regarding the documentary Where Is Wendy Williams?, pending the guardianship court’s decision. Williams has previously expressed her desire to end the guardianship, and in March, sources claimed she had proven her competence after temporarily leaving her assisted care facility to take capacity tests.
The current dispute once again showcases the deep rift between Williams’ legal team and those managing her affairs, with both sides framing the guardianship as either a necessary safeguard or an undue restriction on her independence.
