Wednesday, July 16, 2014
An interesting moment for me at the 2014 Internatonal Elder Law and Policy Conference at John Marshall Law School in early July occurred when I asked several speakers from China to comment on recent reports suggesting "filial support" or "family support" is attracting interest of legislators, courts and older persons in China. For example, I shared with them the text, in English and Chinese, from Chinese Law Prof Blog on "Controversy Over Elder Law in China," that included news reports on consideration of laws in Shandong province in northeastern coastal China. If passed the laws would appear to require adult children to maintain "their parents' standard of living at a level at least equal to their own."
My question sparked a vigorous debate among the Chinese participants and quite a few chuckles from the audience as we tried to keep up with the translators. Over the course of the next two days Professor Lihong Tang from the law school at Fuzhou University in Fujian Province, Professor Chey-Nan Hsieh from Chinese Culture University in Taiwan, and Professor Xianri Zhou of South China Normal University School of Law in Shanghai attempted to help me understand. Here is my understanding of several points made during our discussion, a conversation we have agreed to continue via email:
- The population of individuals aged 65 and older in China is already 119 million. From my separate research I know that the older population is projected to continue to grow at a rate of 3.2 percent per year. The percentage of the population deemed older is also increasing, and according to some reports, it is projected to hit 1/6th of the total population by 2018 and possible as high as 1/5th of the total population by 2035. In other words, as Professor Tang explained, at some point in the relatively near future the total number of elderly in China could exceed the total population -- young, middle-aged and old -- of the U.S.
- With these population statistics in mind, they advised caution in making any judgments or predictions about trends based on a single case decision or from news stories reporting about any single family controversy involving support. And of course, this point is valuable to remember in all legal research, but the importance (and challenge) of having an adequate empirical base in China may be even more significant.
- Court actions to mandate younger family members to care for their elders are not a major trend in China. Rather, they emphasized that most families voluntarily provide the majority of care and financial assistance needed by their elders.
- There are efforts to create a stronger public system of income support where necessary to meet basic needs.
- Recent news reports (that received high profile attention in the U.S., such as this 2013 report on CNN) about a Chinese law that would mandate that adult children also "visit" their elderly parents were focusing on a "proposed" law, not one that was enacted.
In addition to my on-going discussion with the law professors at the conference, Yihan Wang, Senior Judge in the People's Court of the Jing'an District in Shanghai, gave a fascinating presentation on "The Path of Judicial Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly in China." He has served for many years as a judge, and is currently in charge of "civil trials, commercial trials, finance trials and elderly trials" in his judicial district in Shanghai. He explained that an "elderly judicial tribunal" was established in 1994, for civil cases in which one or both parties is aged 60 or more. His court recognizes that older adults may have unique needs for legal assistance in disputes, including a potential need for free legal representation or guidance.
After the presentation of his paper via a translator, Judge Yihan Wang provided me with a copy of the English language translation of his paper. Thus, I was able to both hear and read about his examples of cases that have occurred in the Shanghai court:
"For one example, in the disputes of sale contracts of real estate, some adult children sell their parents' apartment and violate their parents' residency by stealing their parents' identification -- or make them sign the contract with the older person is unconscious. In [some] cases, the judge will judge the contract as valid to protect the third-parties' legal rights according to the Property Law. However, in cases involving the older [person], judges will consider more about the buyer's duty of care and the residency rights of the senior. They will be more cautious and much more strict to confirm the effectiveness of the contract. Mainly to protect the older people's residency right."
In contrast to my on-going discussion with the three Chinese law professors who emphasized the voluntary nature of assistance provided by families to their elders, Judge Yihan Wang's paper suggested that some level of litigation or claims review does occur over the issue of "family support," including what he described as efforts to "remind the adult children of their duty." His paper reported that "statistics show that 56% of the claiming alimony cases are closed by conciliation. In most of these cases, after the trials, children go to visit their parents automatically and the family relationship is improved." He emphasized that for older adults, "conciliation not only protects their legal rights and interests, but also maintains their family relationship and brings their children home."
Judge Yihan Wang's paper, in translation, concludes with these words: "China's 5,000-year-old culture emphasizes respect for the elderly, pension, help age virtues, which [are] absorbed by Chinese law and policy concerning the elderly, reflected in the Chinese judicial practice and become the judicial characteristics on protection of the rights and interests of the elderly in China."
Thus, I can see that my efforts to understand the role of "filial support" or "family support" laws in China will continue, especially as it appears that there may be regional differences in how any such laws are used or needed. In most countries I have studied, voluntary assistance, both practical and financial, flowing from adult children to elderly parents, is the norm. What I find interesting is the question of to what extent is "voluntary" filial assistance also encouraged, mandated, or subject to enforcement by laws. Is the 5,000 year tradition of filial piety under sufficient pressure in the 21st century that law is necessary?
Monday, July 14, 2014
Professional guardians have become important players in the world of adult and elder care. As the need has grown, so have efforts to establish standards or oversight mechanisms. The Center for Guardianship Certification (CGC), for example, offers a national certification process that requires applicants to pass a test, meet minimum eligibility requirements, pay a fee, and make attestations about their background. As reported recently by Sally Hurme for the ABA's Commission on Law and Aging, "as of April 2013, CGC had approved over 1,600 National Certified Guardians and 65 National Master Guardians throughout the country."
Some states have required professional guardians (as opposed to family member or similar one-time guardians) to obtain CGC certification or have adopted state-specific certification standards. In some states, such as Texas and Washington, certification combines with a state entity to receive and evaluate complaints about professional guardians, combined with a disciplinary process. Such disciplinary boards are usually treated as a supplemental option, rather than as a substitution for court reviews, where parties seek review of a guardian's performance.
Having the power to affect the career of a guardian, disciplinary boards for professional guardians have generated questions about procedural fairness. In a recent decision by the Washington Supreme Court, the court was called upon to review the procedural fairness of anctions imposed by the Washington's Certified Professional Guardian Board. At the heart of the challenge was the defendant's allegations of bias against her by an influential member of the Board, someone with whom she had previously served on the Board, and further asserting that the hearing officer had a financial interest in the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, because of desire to continue his paid role for the Board.
The allegations against the defendant, who had more than 10 years of experience as a certified guardian and who maintained an active caseload of more than 60 guardianships, focused on her role as guardian for an elderly woman and for a disabled younger adult. She was alleged to have failed to assist in timely purchase of new glasses for the elderly woman with dementia, and to consult regarding movement of the younger adult to a hospice facility. The defendant contended that all actions taken by her were appropriate and consistent with the discretion accorded her under a "substitute judgment" standard.
In its July 3, 2014 decision in The Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings against Lori A. Petersen, the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, rejected the defendant's arguments about a "personal vendetta" against her, upheld the findings and conclusions regarding defendant's alleged violation of state guardianship standards in serving the two wards, and rejected the defendant's arguments about procedural unfairness.
Nonetheless, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that "[b]ecause this is a case of first impression and the Board aspires to consistency with disciplinary sanctions, we remand to the Board to consider whether the sanctions sought against [the defendant], including the monetary fees, are consistent with those imposed in other cases." The Court questioned the imposition of a one year suspension from practice and more than $30,000 in costs and fees, stating its belief that the "circumstances of this case and the severity of the sanctions and fees in light of the charges brought by Petersen warrant an explicit proportionality inquiry."
In 2010, a Seattle Times news article raised questions about the oversight role of the Washington board, reporting that in "five years, the board has taken action against seven guardians or guardian companies. One lost certification. The others negotiated deals in which they promised not to break the rules. Some agreed to additional monitoring."
In the Petersen case, the Washington Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (through Rajiv Nagaich, Esq.) submitted an amicus brief, challenging the procedural fairness of proceedings against professional guardians in Washington.
For additional thoughts about oversight of guardians, see "A Call for Standards: An Overview of the Current Status and Need for Guardian Standards of Conduct and Codes of Ethics," by University of Washington Law Professor Karen Boxx and Texas attorney and former executive director for the National Guardianship Association, Terry W. Hammond.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
University of Missouri Law Professor David English, who is the current Chair of the ABA Commission on Law and Aging, provides a succinct outline of key legal challenges connected to aging in the U.S., an outline he also uses to organize his law school's Elder Law course. The essay appears in the May/June issue of Bifocal, capturing a lecture Professor English gave to the Institute of Gerontology at the University of Tokyo, Japan and the Beiing Administrative College in China.
In addition to the impact of demography, Professor English points to the following "challenges:"
- Employer Pensions: "In many countries, pensions provided by employers are closely coordinated with government Social Security payments. In the US, the two systems are independent...."
- Social Security: "It is predicted that the [Social Security] Trust Fund will run out of money in 2033. The program will thereupon have to cut benefits by about 25% in order to match payments to current Social Security taxes. To avoid such a sudden cut, Congress should act well in advance of the 2033 deadline to either increase Social Security taxes or modify benefits. Each year that the US Congress waits to act, the necessary adjustments will become more severe...."
- Health Care Finances: "...Medicare already has many gaps in coverage, requiring that elderly persons purchase private supplemental policies. Medicaid for the poor isn't necessarily in better financial shape, and because of low fees paid by Medicaid, many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients. Nor are Medicaid benefits coordinated well with Medicare...."
- Consumer Fraud: "The elderly are frequent targets of fraud. Federal and state regulation is incomplete and inconsistent.... Examples include: mortgage fraud; fraudulent sales of private health insurance; theft by court-appointed guardians; theft by agents under powers of attorneys; funeral fraud; telemarketing, home repair, and sweepstakes fraud."
- Guardianships: "Over the past 30 years, there have been major reforms in US guardianship laws. The court is encouraged to explore alternatives to guardianship before making an appointment. In making an appointment, the court is encouraged to give the guardian only such powers as are necessary, a goal which is achieved by appointing what is known as a limited guardian. But there is a big gap between the statute and the actual practice."
- Planning for Incapacity: "Most people will lack adequate mental capacity to make their own decisions sometime during their lives. Yet, most adults fail to plan in advance. There is a need for better education on the options and encouragement for people to plan."
- Health Care Decisions: "[S]igning a health care power of attorney or health care directive may not be effective to assure that health care decisions are made in accordance with the individual's wishes.... POLST [Physician Orders of Life Sustaining Treatment] shows great promise of creating a pathway whereby a patient's wishes will more likely be honored."
- Elder Abuse: "Similar to guardianship, good data on the prevalence of elder abuse does not exist but the increases in the number of elderly suggest a corresponding increase in the incidence of abuse."
Professor English was also one of the participants at the 2014 Elder Law and Policy Conference recently held at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, serving as a moderator, with JML's Barry Kozak, for the panel on "social security, pensions, and economic rights of older persons."
Thursday, July 10, 2014
One of the effects of "devolution" in the United Kingdom has been opportunities for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland to consider afresh their domestic laws and policy guidelines, separate from the mandates of Parliament in London. As those following recent UK news will know, Scotland this has gone beyond mere "home rule." A referendum vote on full independence is scheduled in Scotland for September 18, 2014.
Northern Ireland has not moved as quickly on adoption of domestic laws and policies. In part because of interruptions in efforts to fully establish home rule following disruptions of violence and the "Troubles," the process of enacting NI domestic laws has been slower paced than in Wales or Scotland, even after the Good Friday Agreement of 1998.
Nonetheless, high on the domestic agenda in NI have been laws and policies related to older people. One of the first modern era laws passed by Stormont was domestic legislation that established an independent Commissioner of Older People for NI. The discussions on that law overlapped with my Fulbright year and sabbatical in NI in 2009-10, and resulted in passage in January 2011.
The first Commissioner, Claire Keatinge, was appointed to a four year term in November of 2011. In my observation, Claire is a force of nature and if anyone can create a clear path to establish ageing as a priority matter for action in NI, it will be this dynamo.
On June 25, Commissioner Keatinge presented her call for fresh adult safeguarding legislation in NI. With emerging data suggesting significant increases in the number of cases of alleged abuse of older people, Commissioner Keatinge commissioned an evaluation of existing laws and comparative approaches in other nations. She asked whether and how NI can better protect adults from abuse, including physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse. After receipt of the academics' report, her in-house legal team responded, helping her present a clear written call for action, a template for legislation.
As explained in her launch on June 25, the Commissioner advocates for:
- Clear definition of "adult at risk," the target term for safeguarding measures and not limited to older adults, as well as enhanced definitions of abuse or harm, and especially of financial abuse;
- Establishment of an adult safeguarding board, with statutory powers;
- Specific duties for relevant bodies and organizations within NI to report, investigate, provide services and cooperate with other agencies to order to better protect "adults at risk;"
- Specific powers of access to an individual believed to be at risk of harm or abuse, to defuse the potential for the abuser to influence the investigation process; and
- Protection from civil liability for those making reports of suspected abuse.
Further, Commissioner Keatinge recommends additional consideration be given to whether an Adult Safeguarding Bill -- as a single piece of legislation -- should grant specific powers to authorities to remove an individual at risk or ban a suspected abuse from contact. Her call for action recommends consideration of a specific grant of power to access financial records, often deemed crucial to investigation of financial risk and proof of abuse. Also on the Commissioner's radar screen is the potential adoption of specific criminal charges for "elder abuse" or "corporate neglect."
It has been exciting for me to see the evolution of the Commissioner's role and her use of the Queens University Belfast and University of Ulster academic reviews (on which I consulted). Professor John Williams (depicted on the far left, next to Claire Keatinge in yellow), head of the department of law and criminology at Aberystwyth University in Wales provided forceful support for the proposed legislation in Northern Ireland during his commentary at the launch, saying the status quo cannot be justified.
I'd like to say I see an easy path for a comprehensive Adult Safeguarding Law to emerge in the near future for Northern Ireland, thus serving as a role model for other jurisdictions facing similar issue.
I have to admit, however, that I was discouraged by what sounded -- at least to me -- like vacillation coming from key government leaders. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Northern Ireland Executive, Edwin Poots (above, in the blue tie). spoke at the Commissioner's launch, expressing his own concern for older people as victims of abuse, especially financial abuse; however, I was disappointed when Minister Poots predicted that it would not be possible for Stormont to reach the issue of safeguarding legislation in the next 21 months. (Of course, coming from the political gridlock of Congress in the U.S., and as a witness to the snail's pace for protective legislation in my home state of Pennsylvania, I guess I should not be too surprised.)
Still, the good news is that the first major steps have been taken by Commissioner Keatinge and her capable staff including Catherine Hewitt and Emer Boyle, with strong support at the launch from social and health care professionals who have seen first hand the potential for subtle and not-so-subtle abuse of elder, disabled or frail adults in Northern Ireland.
And by the way, Professor Williams from Wales will be one of the presenters at the 2014 International Elder Law and Policy Conference at John Marshall Law in Chicago, speaking on older persons' access to justice as a key component of international human rights on Friday, July 11. It is a small world at times and one with a growing commitment to tackle key topics in ageing.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
One of the great components of the network of "Law Prof Blogs" is Chinese Law Prof Blog, edited by Professor Donald Clarke at George Washington Law. Professor Clarke posted a recent entry entitled "Controversy Over Elder Law in China," pointing to draft legislation related to "support" for the aged. While the links in this particular posting are -- of course -- to Chinese language sources, I suspect this might be another aspect of the debate about filial support laws that I've been following through Australian media sources. Here is an English language report on a dramatic Chinese case involving what I would describe as a filial support law matter. Hat tip to my Penn State colleague Professor Beth Farmer for bringing the interesting and wide-ranging Chinese Law Prof Blog to my attention.
Perhaps we'll hear more about this at the 2014 International Elder Law and Policy Conference in Chicago at John Marshall Law this week. Stay tuned.
We've previously posted advance information about the International Elder Law and Policy Conference that will be hosted this week -- July 10-11 -- in Chicago. The organizers are John Marshall Law School; Roosevelt University, College of of Arts and Sciences; and East China University of Political Science and Law.
The conference will have an interesting format, combining presentations from a range of professionals with experience working with or for older persons, and working sessions to draft a model "International Bill of Rights for Elderly Persons, in parallel with U.N. sessions on ageing.
As an example of the breadth of participation and coverage at this conference, my session on Thursday focuses on "Health Care, Caregving for Older Persons and Legal Decision Making," and will be co-moderated with Professor Walter Kendall at John Marshall. The panel includes the following topics and speakers:
- "Dementia and Planning Death: The Challenge for Advance Directives," by Meredith Blake at University of Western Austalia Law School
- "Social Change and Its Apparent Effect on Senior Care Services: A Comparative Study of Post-Soviet Union Russia and the U.S.," by Amy Delaney, partner at Delaney, Delany & Voorn in Illinois, and Alina Risser, a lawyer from Russia, currently studying law at John Marshall;
- "Rights are Not Good for Older Persons in Long-Term Care Settings? Experience from the European Union," by Nena Georgantzi, Legal Officer for AGE Platform Europe;
- "Bridging the Caregiver Gap: Does Technology Provde an Ethically and Legally Viable Answer?," by Donna Harkness, University of Memphis School of Law;
- "The Insufficiency of Spiritual Support of Urban Elders in China and Suggestions on Legislation," by Jun Li, East China University of Political Science and Law.
We'll report more after the events on Thursday and Friday!
July 9, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Discrimination, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
If one looks at the Uniform Law Commission website, it appears that slow but steady progress is being made by states in adopting recommended legislation governing Powers of Attorney (POAs). The ULC recommendation reflected more than four years of research and drafting, culminating in a detailed proposal for POAs issued in 2006. According to the website, 16 states have enacted the uniform law, with an additional four states, Connecticut, Mississippi, Washington, and my own home state, Pennsylvania, considering adoption in 2014. The ULC's recommendations were a deliberate attempt to "preserve the durable power of attorney as a low-cost, flexible, and private form of surrogate decision making while deterring use of the power of attorney as a tool of financial abuse of incapacitated individuals."
On July 3 last week, Pennsylvania's Governor Corbett signed legislation, now designated as Act 95 of 2014, making significant changes to the existing law governing POAs in Pennsylvania. However, the passage of this law also demonstrates how so-called "uniform" laws may be less than uniform from state-to-state in terms of their actual requirements, and I tend to wonder whether other states have also enacted some variation on the ULC's recommendation.
Pennsylvania Act 95 of 2014 (available as HB 1429 here) took more than 3 years of drafting, redrafting, hearings, negotiations, and compromises to accomplish. The spur for adoption was a court decision invalidating transactions executed in reliance on a "void" power of attorney, one purportedly "signed" with an X by a woman while hospitalized. The majority decision put the financial impact on the party accepting the POA, without regard to whether it was using good faith in relying on a document that may appear valid on its face. After that decision, many Pennsylvania retirement plan administrators, banks or other financial institutions were reluctant to honor POAs, fearing they could become the guarantor of misused authority. See Vine v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement Board, 9 A.3d 1150 (Pa. 2010).
PA Act 95 of 2014 addresses the "Vine" question by clarifying a grant of immunity for any person who in "good faith accepts a power of attorney without actual knowledge" of voidness or other invalidity. But Act 95 also mandates certain execution protocols, including:
- for most but not all POAs, requiring the principal's signature, mark or third-party signature to occur in front of two adult witnesses;
- requiring the principal to acknowledge his or her signature before a notary public or other individual authorized by law to take acknowledgments;
- continuing the requirement that principals must sign "notice" forms, but now with enhanced warnings about the significance of POAs, including the recommendation that "before signing this document, you should seek the advice of an attorney at law to make sure you understand it;"
- continuing the requirement that agents must sign an acknowledgement of certain responsibilities, now including an obligation to "act in accordance with the principal's reasonable expectations."
Each of these execution requirements, although certainly permitted by ULC's proposal (and perhaps also entirely consistent with the ULC's concern about the potential for financial abuse), is greater than what is required by the Uniform Law on Powers of Attorney.
At the same time, the Uniform Power of Attorney Act includes potential remedies for abuses of POAs not addressed by old or new law in Pennsylvania, including Section 116 that would grant spouses, parents, descendants and presumptive heirs the right to seek judicial review of an agent's conduct. One open question in Pennsylvania is whether wider standing to challenge suspected abuse is necessary.
One takeaway message from the history of more than 8 years of consideration by states of the Uniform Law on POAs, and more than 3 years of consideration in Pennsylvania about how or whether to adopt some or all of UCL's specific approach, is that achieving uniformity of state civil laws is not an easy task. That makes me even more appreciative of the effort and comparative "ease" of adoption of early efforts at uniformity, such as the uniform commercial code and the recognition that interstate sales transactions would benefit from consistency.
Portions of Pennsylvania Act 95 of 2014, including the grant of immunity for good faith reliance on POAs by third-parties, are immediately effective, while other portions of the law take effect on January 1, 2015. The Pennsylvania Elder Law Institute on July 24-25 in Philadelphia will have several sessions addressing the effect of the new law.
ElderLawGuy Jeff Marshall also has a great overview of the new Pennsylvania law on his blog. Hat tip also goes to Pennsylvania attorney Bob Gerhard for keeping Pennsylvania practitioners up-to-date on the bill numbers and enactment details.
July 8, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Programs/CLEs, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Friday, June 20, 2014
I'm at the mid-point in a three-week period of fairly intense focus on elder protection issues.
Last week, I accepted the invitations of Dickinson Law alum Bob Gerhard and Judge Lois Murphy to join them at the Montgomery County Elder Justice Roundtable to discuss practical concerns about elder abuse at the local level. Bob and I conducted two sessions on Powers of Attorney.
This week, I've had the privilege of being part of working sessions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Elder Law Task Force. Judge Murphy, right, is also a part of this effort. A fascinating mix of trial and appellate level judges, district attorneys, legal aid specialists, solo practitioners, "big firm" lawyers, court administrators, state officials, protective service case workers, social workers (and a couple of us academic types) spent two intense days discussing a year's worth of research on how better to serve the interests and needs of adults who may be at risk of neglect or intentional harm, including financial abuse. Guided by the charge of Justice Debra Todd of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we're looking to issuance of a comprehensive report and recommendation for actions, probably in the early fall 2014.
Next week, I land in Belfast, Northern Ireland for several days of working group meetings on law and aging topics. On Tuesday, June 24, I am part of a research team's Roundtable discussion on recommendations regarding "social care" for older persons. hosted by the independent Commissioner of Older Persons in Northern Ireland (COPNI). Our team leader for that project is Dr. Joseph Duffy of Queen's University Belfast. The following day, I will attend the COPNI's launch of "Protecting our Elder People in Northern Ireland: A Call for Safeguarding Legislation in Northern Ireland." Commissioner Claire Keatinge and her team have been tireless in pursuing a full agenda of safeguarding, care and dignity goals for seniors. Last winter I worked on research findings and recommendations with team leader Dr. Janet Anand, also of Queens University Beflast, that served as a base for the Safeguarding Law proposals. These two projects have involved amazingly talented scholars from diverse backgrounds, including social work and law in Scotland, England, Wales, Australia and, of course, both the north and south of Ireland. The truth is that I've been an avid "student" during my opportunities in Northern Ireland, often facing the reality that those on the other side of the Atlantic are ahead of the U.S. in thinking about key concepts, especially "social care" goals. I look forward to more work, writing several follow-up articles in collaboration with team members as a result of the rich research environment of the last year.
Following this schedule, I'm probably going to take a break from "daily" blogging for a few weeks. I fear my brain may explode if I don't give it a bit of a rest, and I hear the green hills and fields of Ireland calling to me.
June 20, 2014 in Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Social Security | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
On June 18, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved House Bill 1429 (Printer's No. 3708), thus sending the long-debated bill's new provisions on Powers of Attorney to the Governor for signing. If, as anticipated, the bill is signed by the Governor, the new rules would be effective for POAs created on or after January 1, 2015.
Pennsylvania pracitioners? That means the Elder Law Institute offered by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on July 25-26 in Philadelphia will have new relevance to your practice to prepare for the changes. The opening session of the Institute is the always valuable "Year in Review" by elder law and estate planning specialists Marielle Hazen and Rob Clofine.
A detailed summary of the history and key provisions in H.B. 1429 is provided by Pennsylvania Attorney Neil Hendersthot on his blog.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court's rejection of a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement for $285 million -- because of the absence of any admissions by defendant Citigroup -- was improper. In SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, a case that arose from investigations into fraud following the financial industries meltdown, the Second Circuit observed that while the court has an obligation to review consent degrees to determine generally the "legality" of the terms and may consider whether the settlement is "fair and reasonable, to demand admissions as a condition of settlement goes too far.
The Second Circuit said, "It is an abuse of discretion to require, as the district court did here, that the S.E.C. establish the 'truth' of the allegations against a settling party as a condition for approving the consent decrees.... Trials are primarily about the truth. Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism.... Consent decrees provide parties with a means to manage risk."
In cases where injunctive relief is part of the settlement, the Second Circuit said the trial court is permitted to analyze the enforceability of the terms, as a matter of "public interest."
The Wall Street Journal, in reporting on the June 4 decision, observed that the decision "eases pressure" on prosecutors and regulators "to exact admissions of wrongdoing in settlements with companies."
After reading the SEC-related decision, it would seem the same reasoning would govern settlements of federal Medicare and Medicaid fraud suits, including whistleblower cases, such as the multi-million dollar settlements in recent months involving nursing home care, pharmaceutical sales, and hospice, thus explaining how millions in de facto fines often involve no admissions of wrongdoing.
Or as I sometimes describe such agreements to settle, defendants must decide whether they can live with the financial effect of the monetary terms, and must promise merely to never do again what they say they never did before.
But I worry, will customers -- which in Medicare and Medicaid cases, usually means seniors and disabled persons -- be the ones who pay the downstream price of the settlement, especially without clear admissions of wrongdoing in the past?
Sunday, June 1, 2014
As Becky Morgan and I reported earlier, the Law & Society Annual Meeting held in Minneapolis from May 29 through June 1, attracted terrifically interesting speakers, both from within and outside the United States. During the Critical Research Network sessions (CRN) on Aging, Law & Society, I was particularly struck by listening to a trio of speakers from Israel, including Israel (Issi) Doron from the University of Haifa, Michael (Mickey) Schindler from Bar-Ilan University, and Benny Spanier, from Haifa University.
Issi provided a historical perspective on aging as an international human rights issue, tracking the development of action plans under the auspices of the United Nations from 1982 in Vienna to 2002 in Madrid. The 2002 outcome document, the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA), expresses the commitment of 160 participating governments, including the United States, to integrate rights and needs of older persons into national, as well as international, economic and social development policies. However, as Issi pointed out, this is a "soft" document, non-binding in nature.
Thus, the next important step is a Convention or Treaty on aging human rights, a subject of on-going discussions in international circles. Issi saw a hopeful sign in May 2014 appointment of a new Independent Expert on Human Rights of Older Persons, Rosa Kornfeld-Matte, by the U.N. Human Rights Council. Kornfeld-Matte served as the National Director of the Chilean National Service of Ageing and has a long career as an academic, working for more than 20 years at the Pontificia Unversidad Catolica de Chile, where she founded a program on older people. The role for Ms. Kornfeld-Matte, who has a 3 year appointment, is that of fact-finder, to provide an independent assessment of the critical issues for aging human rights as the basis for international law.
Micky's presentation focused on the effect of Israel's use -- or relative nonuse -- of legislation adopted in 1966, the "Safety of Protected Persons Law." He pointed to the potential role of social workers in safeguarding the rights of older adults, and suggesting that the flexibility available to the court to fashion court-enforced solutions to care and safety issues might be a better option than what is available under the more-often used guardianship law.
Benny examined some 226 decisions involving claims by older persons before the European Court of Human Rights, drawn from 2000 to 2010, concluding that although the European Convention on Human Rights does not specifically recognize older adults as having protected right, the cases examined demonstrate that individuals making age-based claims for protection are seeking -- and in some instances finding -- relief before this court. Benny's analysis of these cases, in a paper co-authored with Issi and Faina Milman-Sivan, also from the University of Haifa, was published in late 2013 in the Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology.
Following the first day of presentations and workshops, several of the speakers met for dinner at a local Minneapolis restaurant (Spoonriver, overlooking the Mississippi River -- great spot!), and a number of us were discussing a growing problem for international research. Many of the key journals and periodical publications for aging research are "owned" by publishers who prohibit authors from placing final versions of their papers on open-access research platforms such as SSRN. The prices charged for individual researchers' access to electronic copies of an article are often prohibitive for academic researchers, who often need and wish to cite to multiple sources. We discussed options, such as whether authors should seek to negotiate for unrestricted public access after an initial period of fee-paid access. Others' thoughts on this issue?
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Law & Society Association's Annual Meeting is always a feast -- with hundreds of presentations and papers, often with cross-discipline themes and presenters. This year's four day program starts today in Minneapolis. On tap are three elder law-themed sessions hosted by Aging, Law & Society. The session on "Rethinking Elder Law's Rules & Norms" will be chaired by Nina Kohn, Syracuse University.
Scheduled paper presentations include:
- Adult Protective Services and Therapeutic Jurisprudence, by Michael Schindler, Bar-Ilan University;
- Age, Gender and Lifetime Discrmination against Working Women, by Susan Bisom-Rapp, Thomas Jefferson School of Law and Malcolm Sargeant, Middlesex University Business School;
- Effective Affective Forecasting in Older Adult Caregiving, by Eve Brank and Lindsey Wylie, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
- Sexuality & Incapacity, by Alexander Boni-Saenz, Chicago-Kent College of Law;
- Beyond the Law: Legal Consciousness in Older Age Care Contexts, by Sue Westwood, Keele University
Nancy Knauer of Temple Law School is chairing the session on "Accessing and Experiencing Jusice in Older Age." Presentations include:
- From Vienna to Madrid and Beyond, by Israel Doron, University of Haifa;
- Lessons from Detroit: Retiree Benefits in the Real World, by Susan Cancelosi, Wayne State University Law School;
- Older Persons Use of the European Court of Human Rights, by Benny Spanier, Haifa University;
- Crossing Borders and Barriers: Assessing Older Adults' Access to Legal Advice in the Search for Effective Justice, by Katherine Pearson, Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, Joseph Duffy, Queens University Belfast, and Subhajit Basu, University of Leeds
A workshop on "Ethics of Care and Support in Law and Aging," to be chared by Sue Westwood, Keele University, includes:
- Aging with a Plan: What You Should Consider in Middle Age to Plan for Caregiving and Your Own Old Age, by Sharona Hoffman, Case Western Reserve University;
- An Ethic of Care Critique of the UK Care Bill/Act, by Sarah Webber, University of Bristol;
- Both Property and Pauper: Slaver, Old Age, and the Inverted Logic of Capitalist Exchange, by Alix Lerner, Princeton University;
- Responding to Financial Vulnerability: Advances in Gerotchnology as an Alternative to the Substitute Decision Making Model, by Margaret Hall, Thompson Rivers University and Margaret Easton, Simon Fraser University
An international cast of characters, yes? More soon, with details from the front.
Friday, May 23, 2014
John Marshall Law School and Roosevelt University, both in Chicago, and East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai, are jointly sponsoring an International Elder Law and Policy Conference in Chicago on July 10-11.
Keynote speakers include Professor Israel Doron of the University of Haifa in Israel and Dr. Ellinoir Flynn and Professor Gerard Quinn, both from National Unviersity of Ireland, Galway School of Law.
Scheduled panel topics include:
- Dignity and Rights of the Elderly
- Elimination of Age Discrimination
- Caregivers and Surrogate Decision Makers
- Social Security, Pensions and Other Retirement Financing Approaches
- Prevention of Elder Abuse
- Access to Justice
Here's the link to the Registration website.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
In Doe v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, the state's Supreme Court analyzes the standards for state intervention to provide involuntary protective services on the grounds the individual is a "vulnerable adult" under South Carolina's statutory authority. In a 3 to 2 decision filed on April 30, 2014, the majority of the court Court concludes:
"Although we believe the family court was well intentioned, we find that it erred in classifying Doe as a vulnerable adult under the Act. Specifically, there was no evidence that Doe's advanced age impaired her ability to adequately provide for her own care and protection. Without this threshold determination, the court erred in ordering Doe to remain in protective custody until the identified protective services were completed."
The dissent finds the majority's reasoning too narrow, pointing to the following facts:
"On July 31, 2012, law enforcement officers went to the home of Doe, then age 86. Doe, suffering from a heart condition, lived alone. Doe refused entry to the officers. The doors and windows to the home were barricaded. The officers noticed a hose running from a neighbor's home through a hole in the roof of Doe's home. This was Doe's only source of water, for water service had been stopped for nonpayment. The inside of the home was, according to the officers, 'in an unsanitary and deplorable condition.' There was mold present as well."
The outcome of the case is influenced by the testimony of a physician, who despite the conditions of the home and the physical infirmities of Doe, observed that she "appeared to have 'the minimum levels of competency to function independently' as there was no evidence of dementia, severe emotional issues, or obvious physical limitations." Doe was apparently either without adequate financial resoures or unable to manage her resources to live more safely in the home, but she firmly rejected the alternative of transfer to another setting.
Although overruling the trial court's conclusion that Doe was a vulnerable adult, the Superme Court also remanded for additional findings of the current status of Doe, who received emergency services in the interim.
Tough facts that demonstrate the challenge of balancing safety for persons at risk of "self neglect" with respect for the autonomy of the individual, a challenge that can arise at any age. Poverty adds to the challenge.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Casey Kasem, Mickey Rooney, Brooke Astor. High profile, recent examples of tough times for aging individuals. For lawyers, their histories demonstrate the challenges of planning. Lawyers juggle tough questions about how to handle waning capacity and respect an individual's preferences, while recognizing the probable need for safety and quality care. Add to this the reality that family members are often involved directly and indirectly. We hope everyone agrees and is well intentioned, but, there are no guarantees.
Texas Elder Law Attorney Renee Lovelace has a very good article from a few years ago, using another high profile example of the challenges of planning. She writes about economist and statistician Mollie Orshansky who passed away in 2006 at the age of 91. Orshanky's name has been in the news again recently because of renewed discussion of the "poverty thresholds" she articulated in the 1960s and which are still used (probably irrationally) as a measurement tool for public benefits.
In her later years, Orshansky was at the center of a dispute about care that might be in her "best interest" but that also might be inconsistent with her expressed wishes. In "Working with Elder Clients Who Refuse Help," (Texas Bar Journal, February 2008, available as downloadable PDF from archives), Renee writes:
"But when Ms. Orshansky needed assistance, she rejected help from family. She was hospitalized, and the court, critical of the family for not preventing her decline, appointed a nonfamily guardian. The resulting saga included an interstate guardianship battle, allegations of family kidnapping, a riveting series of Washington Post articles and Senate Committee hearings. While Mollie's story may be movie-worthy, it is alarming to realize that she did everything that we suggest clients do to plan ahead — and her case still had a disastrous result."
Lovelace identifies several key points to keep in mind when helping clients to plan ahead, including the importance of "the talk" with family members. She discusses the possibility of building in monitoring options, while also recognizing the potential for even the best intentioned caretaker or agent to make mistakes. She talks realistically about the need for balance between "people, paper and money."
What are other techniques and approaches -- more than just documents and legal advice -- that seasoned lawyers use to avoid these kinds of disputes? Feel free to add your "comments."
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
It occurs to me that what I'm about to write here is a mini-review of a mini-book. Slightly complicating this little task is the fact that I count both authors as friends and mentors.
The latest edition of Elder Law in a Nutshell by Professors Lawrence Frolik (University of Pittsburgh) and Richard Kaplan (University of Illinois) arrived on my desk earlier this month. (As Becky might remind us, both are definitely Elder Law's "rock stars.") And as with fine wine, this book, now its 6th edition, becomes more valuable with age. This is true even though achieving the right balance of simplicity and detail cannot be an easy task for authors in the intentionally brief "Nutshell" series. Presented in the book are introductions to the following core topics:
- Ethical Considerations in Dealing with Older Clients
- Health Care Decision Making
- Medicare and Medigap
- Long-Term Care Insurance
- Nursing Homes, Board and Care Homes, and Assisted Living Facilities
- Housing Alternatives & Options (including Reverse Mortgages)
- Alternatives to Guardianship (including Powers of Attorneys, Joint Accounts and Revocable Trusts)
- Social Security Benefits
- Supplemental Security Income
- Veterans' Benefits
- Pension Plans
- Age Discrimination in Employment
- Elder Abuse and Neglect
The authors describe their anticipated audience, including "lawyers and law students needing an overview of some particular subject, social workers, certain medical personnel, gerontologists, retirement planners and the like." Curiously, they don't mention potential clients, including family members of older persons. I suspect the book can and does assist prospective clients in thinking about when and why an "elder law specialist" would be an appropriate choice for consultation. This book is a very good starting place.
What's missing from the overview? Not a lot, although I find it interesting that despite solid coverage of the basics of Medicaid, and even though it is unrealistic to expect exhaustive coverage in a mini-book, the authors do not hint at the bread and butter of many elder law specialists, i.e., Medicaid Planning. Thus, there's little mention of some of the more cutting edge (and therefore potentially controversial) planning techniques used to create Medicaid eligibility for an individual's long-term care while also preserving assets that otherwise would have to be spent down.
Modern approaches, depending on the state, may range from the simple, such as permitted use of assets to purchase a better replacement auto, to more complex planning, as in states that permit purchase of spousal annuities or use of promissory notes, allow modest half-a-loaf gifting, or recognize spousal refusal. Even though the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 succeeded in restricting assets transfers to non-spouse family members, families, especially if there is a community spouse, may still have viable options. Without appropriate planning the community spouse, particularly a younger spouse, may be in a tough spot if forced to spend down to the "maximum" permitted to be retained, currently less than $120,000 (in, for example, Pennsylvania). See, for example, a thoughtful discussion of planning options, written by Elder Law practitioners Julian Gray and Frank Petrich.
Perhaps the Nutshell omission is a reflection of the unease some who teach Elder Law may feel about the public impact of private Medicaid planning?
May 14, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Books, Cognitive Impairment, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Discrimination, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Property Management, Social Security | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Thursday, May 1, 2014
In the April 28 issue of The New Yorker magazine, Michael Kinsley offers a great piece, entitled "Have You Lost Your Mind?" At first I thought the article was just a well written but not very surprising prediction about the looming "tsunami" of aging baby boomers. Good research, interesting tidbits of medical fact, sharp-edged moments of social commentary and nice touches of humor. Kinsley writes, for example:
"I predicted [a few years ago] that the ultimate boomer rat race would be the competition to live the longest.... But, on further reflection, I think I underrated the penultimate boomer competition: competitive cognition. The rules are simple: the winner is whoever dies with more of his or her marbles."
But then the article gets serious, and seriously interesting. The author reveals he was diagnosed twenty years ago with Parkinson's disease (PD) at the age of 43. That's when I, as a reader, noticed that the article was subtitled "Personal History." For the last twenty years, Kinsley has had time and reason to think about the potential consequences of PD, not just for his body, but his mind. He thoughtfully explores cognitive defects that can accompany PD, and which can be progressive.
With facts, anecdotes and his own worry-driven research, Kinsley explains that not all dementias are about loss of memory:
"[A] difference between Alzheimer's and Parkinson's is that Alzheimer's tends to starts its destruction in the parts of the brain affecting memory, whereas Parkinson's starts with what they call the executive function: analyzing a situation and your options and making a decision."
Ultimately, even though he isn't having any symptoms he can identify as PD-related cognition problems, Kinsley bites the bullet and decides, as he puts it, to have his "brain tested." Bottom line (and, really, his entire article is absolutely worth reading so I'm being unfair in skipping to the bottom line), although he scored exceptionally well on intelligence and "cognitive reserve" (meaning memory), in fact the test identified very real deficits in executive function.
Now remember, the article is funny and, in many ways, brilliant. This guy is functioning at a very high level. But there's a message here, including a possible message for families and lawyers.
As I read the article, I was remembering a conversation with someone who was asking me about alternatives under the law because he was worried about a family member. In his explanation, at first he focused on the possibility of a memory problem, then instances of unexplainable mood changes, and then, finally, he gave me specific examples of what could be described as impairments in the loved one's "executive function."
At what point -- especially if Kinsley and others are right about the looming tsunami of baby boomers with dementia -- do lawyers need to be much more sensitive to and skilled in the subtleties of impaired "executive function?" Does our tendency to focus on the presence or absence of "memory problems" gloss over the biological explanations for a client's odd gifting decision? I wonder how many lawyers would think to ask about Parkinson's disease, even if they witnessed a tremor or shake? Do they therefore fail to ask appropriate questions of the "intelligent" client with the "clear" memory about the reasons for trusting a new "befriender" while becoming estranged from long-standing family or friends? Admittedly, I'm taking Kinsley's analysis one or two steps further.
As he winds to a close in his piece, Kinsley suggests the need for greater appreciation of age-related neurological disorders, observing: "[W]eaknesses can be overcome, to some extent, by strengths somewhere else.... We are comfortable with the idea that physical health is not just a single number but a multiplicity of factors. That's where we need to arrive about mental problems. As we get older, we're all going to lose a few of our marbles."
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
On April 24, I have the good fortune to be working with a neuropsychologist from the neurology department at Penn State Hershey Medical Center in presenting a program on "Dementia Diagnosis and the Law," for a meeting of the Estate Planning Council in York, Pennsylvania. Professor Claire Flaherty and I have "traded" presentations in the past, with her speaking at the law school and me speaking at the medical school, but this will be our first time presenting together. We're excited.
One of the important lessons that I've learned in working with Claire is the clear potential for cognitive impairment to exist without the "usual" symptoms associated with "Alzheimer's." For example, much of Claire's work is with patients and families coping with early onset dementias. Because Frontotemporal Dementia or FTD (sometimes also referred to as Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration or FTLD) can begin to manifest in persons aged 45 to 64 years, the onset may be overlooked or misunderstood. Plus, as Claire reminds me, "FTD is primarily a disease of behavior and language dysfunction, while the hallmark of Alzheimer's Disease is loss of memory."
For legal professionals, including those asked to prepare deed transfers, wills or estate planning documents, the potential for subtle presentations of cognitive impairment can be especially significant. Making sure the client is oriented as to "time, place and person" may not be enough to address the potential for loss of judgment, thus opening the door for unusual gifts, risky financial decisions or even of adamant rejection of once trusted family members.
A good place to turn for information about early onset forms of dementia, including FTD, is the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration or AFTD -- or join us for the York Estate Planning Council meeting this week.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
The title of a piece in the April 2014 issue of AARP Bulletin, "Dispatches from the Battle of the Ages," suggests that we're already in a battle between older and younger people, with the article detailing media reports about battlelines on jobs, funding for federal benefit programs, health care costs, and caregiving obligations.
"Alarmists use ... statistics to paint a portrait of generational warfare. But are they mounting that picture in the wrong frame? To paraphrase a slogan from the 60's peace movement, 'Suppose they gave a generational war and nobody came?'"
The article suggests an interesting resource, Paul Taylor's book (released in March), The Next America.
"Taylor [executive vice president of special projects at the Pew Research Center in Washington D.C.] and his Pew Colleagues conducted opinion surveys and pored over decades of demographic data. Yes, there is a palpable anxiety about the lingering recession and long-term problems associated with entitlements, plus the runaway national debt. Yet Taylor notes this anger transcends age barriers."
At times I do hear a strong resentment among students, both at the college level and in law school, and yet at the same time, I am also impressed by how many students choose to take courses and look for jobs in fields that will serve older adults. Is there a "war" -- or is it more of a struggle to find firm footing on ground that is ever shifting?
Thursday, April 17, 2014
An arbitral award in March 2014 by Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered Signator Investors, Inc., a firm aligned with the John Hancock Financial Network, to pay an older couple and their elderly mother's estate $1.2 million for losses arising from failed retirement investments inappropriately marketed to them by a Signator broker. The award to the claimants included "compensatory" damages plus interest, and ordered rescission of all the claimant's investments in Colonial Tidewater Realty Partners. The award also granted Signator's cross-claim against its former broker, James Robert Glover, for breach of contract, fraud and negligence as potential indemnification on the damage award.
As is true with most arbitration awards, the ruling on Docket No. 13-00579 (available via search at the FINRA website) is "bare bones," providing little in the way of explanation about which legal theories support the outcome. A detailed explanation is unnecessary for FINRA arbitration rulings, which cannot be appealed.
The claimants, a husband and wife (both 70+) and the husband's mother (who died in 2012 at the age of 103), reportedly invested their entire retirement savings through Glover, who put them into securities not held or offered by Glover's brokerage company. This practice is sometimes described as "selling away." Signator's defense that Glover's actions were therefore outside the scope of his authority with their company and not subject to their control or responsibility to supervise was implicitly rejected by the FINRA arbitrators. News reports indicate some 40 other pending complaints connected to Glover's actions. Glover was sanctioned personally by FINRA in March 2013.
FINRA, created in 2007, is the successor to NASD, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the former enforcement operation for member brokerage firms and exchange markets regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. A single arbitral award of $1+ million through FINRA is interesting by itself. For example, for the entire year of 2013, FINRA ordered a total of $9.5 million in restitution to harmed investors.
But what caught my attention was the additional award of $453,970 in attorneys' fees for the claimants against Signator, "pursuant to California elder abuse statutes." The amount of the fees appears to be roughly 40% of the damage award. Most securities claims are handled by attorneys on a contingency fee arrangement and a fee of 40% of the award is not unusual in this challenging field. Thus, even a successful claimant before FINRA may not be made whole, absent a contractual or statutory basis to claim attorneys' fees. So the award of compensatory damages and interest, plus attorneys fees' is significant.
Unlike many states, California has a comprehensive provision for attorneys' fees connected to civil actions for abuse of elderly or dependent adults, at Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 15657-15657.8, including Section 15657.5 providing for attorneys' fees where it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is liable for "financial abuse."