I don't think so. IANAL, but my understanding is that every frivolous claim in a legal brief undoes the effects of several meritorious ones. And some of the claims here are IMHO obviously frivolous.
For example, the last comment on the ADA claim notes that nothing in [the ADA] shall be construed to authorize the discontinuance of feeding/hydration. That may be true, but so what? If there's nothing in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance and there's something in such other statute that allows it, then it's legal. If there is something in the ADA which forbids such discontinuance or there's nothing in another statute to allow it, then the action is illegal but unaddressed by this claim. In short, the comment about the ADA and feeding tubes does nothing to support the claim, and weakens other aspects that would otherwise be meritorious.
I don't mean to disparage the people who are trying to fight on Terri's behalf, but sloppiness in legal procedings can be deadly. There are enough claims of substantial merit that including frivolous claims severely weakens the Schindler's case.