Saturday, April 12, 2014

Pennsylvania's Current Debate: How Best to Respond to Elder Exploitation?

I think it is safe to say that in more than twenty years of working in law and aging, the last twelve months have been the "busiest" I can remember on the topic of financial abuse of older persons. 

As examples, in just the last six months, in addition to international projects on safeguarding policies, I have been invited to assist a team of attorneys on a series of well-attended CLE presentations on "powers of attorney," testify at the invitation of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on the topic of financial abuse and exploitation, and serve on an Abuse and Neglect Committee for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Elder Law Task Force.  

Certainly the concerns about financial abuse of older adults are not new. However, a steady drumbeat of local news reports about financial abuse, plus the demographics of aging populations, has drawn increased attention of state legislators, courts, and practitioners.  In many jurisdictions, the focus is no longer just on "whether" but "how" to address the problem of exploitation of older people. In addition, the high profile cases involving philanthropist Brooke Astor and actor Mickey Rooney, reportedly at the hands of family members and others, have made it clear that no level of society is immune from the potential for abuse.   

Along this line, in Pennsylvania a series of events have helped to shape the current debate on abuse of older persons or other "vulnerable" adults, and thus has generated proposed legislation.  Perhaps Pennsylvania's history will resonate with those addressing similar concerns in other jurisdictions:

  • In 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a state agency that was responsible for administering a specific retirement fund was entitled to good faith immunity under state law when taking action in reliance on a purported Power of Attorney (POA) presented by the spouse as agent of his employee/wife.  In Vine v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a majority of the Court concluded that where the employee's "X" on the POA was improperly obtained by her husband while she was incapacitated after a life threatening car accident, the POA was invalid  -- in other words "void" -- and therefore the "immunity" conferred by the state's POA law was not available to the agency.   (There were  strong dissents to the majority's ruling,).   The decision had implications for POAs generally, and certainly POAs presented by family members or others to banks on behalf of older people who needed or desired agents to handle financial matters.  In Pennsylvania, financial institutions began questioning POAs, seeking reassurances that the document in question was valid.  The commercial viability of POAs was thus at risk. This became known as the "Vine" problem in Pennsylvania.
  • Attorneys representing various stakeholders, including families, financial institutions and district attorneys, began to weigh-in with proposed "fixes" for the Vine problem, while sometimes also raising other concerns related to financial abuse of older or vulnerable adults.
  • The Uniform Law Commission, after years of hard work by academics, judges, attorneys and other interested parties nationwide, issued a proposed "Uniform Power of Attorney Act" (UPOAA) in 2006. Central to the proposed legislation were safeguards intended to better protect the incapacitated principal, as well as address concerns by agents and third parties. By 2014, fourteen states have enacted revisions of POA laws, drawing upon the Uniform Act for guidance. As with other uniform law movements, the Commission's work on UPOAA  recognized the need for accepted standards for instruments used in national commerce, instruments that frequently cross state borders. 
  • In Pennsylvania, the UPOAA has influenced two bills, House Bill 1429 (introduced by Representative Keller) and Senate Bill 620 (introduced by Senator Greenleaf).  Each bill passed in their respective houses.  (This single sentence truncates several years of  history about the negotiations, all set against the background of need for a "Vine" fix.)  Both bills address the concerns of banks and other third-parties who want reassurances that they may rely in good faith on POAs that appear on their face to be valid.
  • Following legislative hearings that included testimony from individuals representing banks, legal service agencies, and protective service agencies,  other legislative proposals emerged.  These pending bills include: SB 621 (Senator Greenleaf) with significant, additional updates to POA laws, as well as other parts of the probate code; HB 2014 (Representative Hennessey) proposing significant revisions of the state's Older Adult Protective Services Act; and HB 2057 (Representative White) amending the Older Adult Protective Services Act to create a private right of action, including attorneys fees and punitive damages, for victims of exploitation against the abusers. 

In Pennsylvania, which has a year-round legislature, there tend to be two windows for major action on pending legislation, including the "budget" cycle that ends on July 1 and again during autumn months.  In following the various bills, it seems to me likely that HB 1429 will be the vehicle for the "Vine" fix.  There is also the possibility that Senator Greenleaf's second bill, SB 621, and other tweaks will be passed, either as standalone legislation or as amendments to HB 1429 or other bills.  Thus, for interested persons and stakeholders, the weeks leading up to July 1 will mean keeping a watchful eye (and alert ear) for last minute changes.

All of the stakeholders are well-intentioned and concerned about the best interests of older adults who because of frailty often have no choice but to rely on agents or others acting in a fiduciary capacity. 

At the same time, as I've watched the events of the last four years in Pennsylvania come to a peak the last six months, I've observed a complicating factor.  Those who are most likely to see violations of POAs, including district attorneys, protective service agencies and the courts, probably do not see the larger volume of commercial transactions that happen routinely and appropriately without the added cost of enhanced accounting or oversight.  By comparison, professional advisors who routinely facilitate families in estate planning, including transactional attorneys, tend not to see the abusers. Finally, financial institutions, who probably feel caught in the middle, and who are often on the front lines of witnessing potential abuse, seek the ability to report suspected abuse without incurring liability, while also avoiding the costs of becoming "mandatory" reporters (a topic addressed in some proposed amendments of the Older Adult Protective Services Act).  Thus it is challenging to balance the viewpoints of different groups in crafting effective (including cost effective) solutions.

There is also the potential that by focusing primarily on POAs, which in Pennsylvania is driven by a very real need for a "Vine" fix, we may be missing or minimizing other significant instances of abuse via joint accounts, questionably "signed" checks, or misuse of bank cards and credit cards.  The amounts of money per transaction may be smaller in those instances, but depending on the victim's resources, the impact may be even more significant.

Ironically, as the population of older adults increases, state funding, including Pennsylvania funding, is under constant threat, thus weakening Protective Services, Legal Services and the courts, all entities that can help victims, and that have expertise in investigation and intervention where abuse is indicated.

April 12, 2014 in Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 11, 2014

Catch-Up Friday: Furor Over Filial Support, Mutual Responsibility & Related Laws

It is Friday and time for a catch-up on recent law review articles.  I posted last month on Memphis Professor Donna Harkness' article on filial support laws, but she is not the only one with recent publications analyzing the seemingly renewed interest in enforcement of such laws around the country and the world.  Here are highlights from recent comments and articles (minus those pesky footnotes):

"The Parent Trap: Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas, How it Reinforced Filial Responsibility Laws and Whether Filial Responsibility Laws Can Really Make you Pay," Comment by Texas-Tech Law Student Mari Park for the Estate Planning & Community Property Law Journal (Summer 2013):

"Texas should join the other twenty-eight states that already have a filial responsibility statute. Placing the duty of support on able family members first is a centuries-old obligation that has managed to survive into the present day despite opposition. While filial responsibility may seem harsh, it is simply making families care for each other. With the number of indigent elderly quickly rising, long-term care costs are likely affecting many families. Instead of ignoring the issue and hoping the government will shoulder this burden, maybe it is time for families to step up and take responsibility." 

"Filial Responsibility: Breaking the Backbone of Today's Modern Long Term Care System," Article by Elder Law Specialist Twyla Sketchley and Florida State Law Student Carter McMillan for the St. Thomas Law Review (Fall 2013): 

"The costs of long term care are staggering  and a solution must be found for this crisis. However, mandatory filial responsibility is not the answer. Enforcement of filial responsibility in the modern long term care system is unsustainable and ineffective. Filial responsibility has been recognized since the Great Depression as ineffective in providing for the needs of elders. Scholars have recognized that families provide care, not out of legal obligation, but personal moral obligation, and do so at great sacrifice. Enforcement of filial responsibility in today's long term care system burdens those who are the least able to shoulder the additional burden. Based on the value and the consistency of the care provided by informal caregivers, informal caregiving is the one piece of the long term care system that is working. Therefore, the solutions to the long term care financing system must encourage and support the informal caregiving system[,] not add additional, unsustainable burdens."

"Intestate Succession for Indigent Parents: A Modest Proposal for Reform," Comment by Toledo Law Student Matthew Boehringer for the University of Toledo Law Review (Fall 2013):

"Filial support statutes have already laid the groundwork and rationale behind adults supporting their dependents and should provide a convenient outlet for a government looking to reduce spending. Society will inevitably find more parents dependent on support from their children. Consequently, more of the elderly population will find that avenue of support estopped should that child die and without a means of familial support.  A modest reform of intestacy laws will address this situation and smooth over inconsistencies between different applications of the same purpose. The burden on the estate should not be excessive because the decedent was already providing for the elderly parent before death. Moreover, probate courts will already know the facts of the case and, thus, are in the best position to provide an equitable treatment for all parties dependent on the decedent. This modest proposal offers little harm but much benefit for some of the weakest of society."

In addition to the above articles addressing obligations that may run from adult child to parent, an article on "Who Pays for the 'Boomerang Generation?' A Legal Perspective on Financial Support For Young Adults," by Rutgers-Camden Law Professor Sally Goldfarb for the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, analyzes the practical obligations assumed by many single parents, often women, to support adult children who are not yet self-sustaining.  Professor Goldfarb observes that a "financially struggling single mother who provides support for her adult child is at heightened risk of becoming an impoverished elderly woman."  She proposes:

"Instead of urging mothers to 'just say no' to financially dependent adult children, a better approach would be to ensure that the burden of financial support for young adults is distributed more equitably.... Divorced, separated, and never-married mothers of financially dependent young adults are in a position of derivative dependency. If they cut their financial ties to their adult children, they jeopardize the children's financial security. If they don't cut those ties, they jeopardize their own. A solution that safeguards the well-being of both mothers and young adults is urgently needed. In the absence of widely available public programs to meet the needs of young adults, the most obvious solution is to divide the cost of supporting them fairly between both parents...[as she explains in greater detail]."

Don't hesitate to write and let me know if I have missed your recent article addressing filial support laws or related concepts.

April 11, 2014 in Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, April 7, 2014

Causation Proof Needed for Breach of Contract Claims Against "Responsible Parties" in Nursing Home Cases

We have another interesting appellate decision from Connecticut on the question of personal liability of an individual who signed an agreement as a "responsible party" when admitting his parent to a nursing home.  The opinion is in Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman, issued by the Connecticut Court of Appeals with a decision date of April 8, 2014. 

The majority of the three judge panel concludes that the son who signed the agreement cannot be held liable, based on the evidence -- or rather lack of evidence -- in the record.  Although the evidence establishes the son failed to provide all information requested by the state Medicaid department following his mother's application for Medicaid, and therefore breached duties he assumed as a "responsible party" under Section IV of the nursing home agreement, the majority concludes he cannot be held liable because there "is no evidence in the record...indicating that, had the defendant [son] complied with his obligations under the agreement, [the nursing home] would have received any Medicaid payments." 

In other words, the nursing home proved breach, but not causation of damages, even though "the parties stipulated...that if the department granted Medicaid benefits to the defendant's mother, the department would have paid the facility $47,561.18."  The ruling focuses on that "if," noting: 

"The testimonial evidence submitted to the court demonstrated, on the one hand, that submitting the proper information to the department merely triggered a review of the resident's eligibility and, on the other hand, the submission of such information was not a guarantee of approval to receive such benefits.... [A]n eligibility services supervisor at the department...testified that the department could not determine whether an applicant qualified for Medicaid absent a review of the applicant's financial information, which was not furnished to the department in the present case. As the defendant notes in his appellate brief, the plaintiff did not ask Leveque 'if, based upon the defendant's testimony regarding the assets maintained by [his mother], he had an opinion regarding whether ... [she] would have qualified for [such] benefits.' In addition, the record before us does not indicate that the plaintiff was prevented from presenting the proper financial documentation, expert testimony, or other evidence that would have otherwise established the resident's likelihood of approval, nor has the plaintiff in this appeal directed our attention to any such evidence."

There is a complicated history to third-party liability issues in nursing home contracts, especially in Connecticut.  As readers of our Blog may recall, last year the Connecticut Supreme Court declined to hold a signing family member liable for costs of the parent's care, where that individual did not have a Power of Attorney or other authority to apply for Medicaid.  See "Nursing Home Contracts Revisited: The Nutmeg State Adds Spice," commenting on Aaron Manor, Inc. v. Irving, 57 A.3d 342 (Conn. 2013).  Further, as we note in that post, Connecticut made significant changes to its Medicaid laws effective in October 2013, as a result of a series of nursing home cases involving third-parties.  In certain circumstances, Connecticut now seeks to impose statutory liability on individuals who are either transferors or transferees, connected to the resident's ineligibility for Medicaid because of disqualifying transfers.

The Meadowbrook decision is also well worth reading for anyone interested in the related but separate concepts of contract law and promissory estoppel. 

Further, in a separate concurring opinion, a third judge concludes that the nursing home agreement should not be construed as imposing liability unless the "responsible party" has been shown to have misappropriated the resident's resources, because without that personal fault, the responsible party agreement becomes a "guaranty," prohibited by federal Medicaid law. The majority, however, "strongly" rejects that analysis.  We'll keep our eyes open to see if the Meadowbrook case goes to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

When I first began analyzing "responsible party" liability in nursing home contracts, I became convinced the contracts drafted by many facilities created a minefield of problems.  In some instances, the providers seem to intentionally blur the lines of responsibility for third-parties.   On the one hand, facilities "need" agents to sign for new residents who are often lacking capacity to contract.  So the admissions office points to the "no personal liability" language in the agreement signed by the third-party.  On the other hand, if something does go wrong with the Medicaid application, that same facility will often be quick to point out that it is the third-party signer's obligation to fix the problem, or face potential personal liability. 

The nursing homes, of course, whether for profit 0r nonprofit, are not in the business of providing free care. 

The last ten years of litigation have only increased the importance for individuals to understand the significance of nursing home agreements.  Individuals may want legal advice from specialists in state Medicaid law before signing the agreement; further they may need to seek legal help again if there is any hiccup in the Medicaid application process. After the Meadowbrook case, I think it is safe to say care facilities will be better prepared to prove causation of damages.     

April 7, 2014 in Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 4, 2014

Florida Supreme Court Ruling Demonstrates More Dangers of DIY Will "Forms"

The Florida Supreme court ruled unanimously in Aldrich v Basile on March 27 that property acquired by a testator after execution of her will was not be controlled by the will, because although she had made bequests, the "E-Z Legal Form" she used did not include a residuary clause to address non-specific bequests.   Thus the after-acquired property passed by intestacy laws to family members not mentioned in the will.

The testator has used the "will form" to make specific bequests of several items of valuable property, including her house, vehicle and bank accounts (identified by numbers) to her sister, and provided that if her sister "dies before I do I leave all listed to" her brother.  The sister died first, leaving "Putnam County" property to the testator. Two nieces (children of a second brother, also deceased) asserted an interest in the probate action, arguing that "without any general devises and in the absence of a residuary clause," the will "contained no mechanism to dispose of the after-acquired property." They could recover under Florida's intestacy laws. 

The court also rejected consideration of a separate hand-written note by the testator as evidence of her "true" intent with regard to the after-acquired property to the named brother, because Florida's law requires "the same formalities" as a will for codicils.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Pariente pointed to the pre-printed will form, noting there was no "space to include a residuary clause or pre-printed language that would allow a testator to elect to use such a clause." Justice Pariente described the unfortunate decision by the testator to rely on a form, rather than hire a "knowledgeable lawyer," as an example of the "old adage 'penny-wise and pound-foolish:'"

"I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the  potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance.  As the case demonstrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator's intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney's fees -- the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place."

For another example of a "penny-wise and pound foolish" outcome from use of commercial estate planning "forms," see our October 2013 post on a Pennsylvania case, see "Do-It-Yourself Wills:  Penny Wise & Pound Foolish?"

 Thanks to Professor Laurel Terry for pointing to an ABA Journal Blog post on the Florida case.

 

April 4, 2014 in Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Hot Topic: "How to Get Older Drivers Off the Road"

Digging out December 2010"How to get older drivers off the road." 

That's a frequent paper topic proposal for students in my Elder Law course, and one that usually triggers a conversation about the potential for "ageism." I remind students it will be important to provide evidence in support of their proposals, and not simply recount anecdotes about bad older drivers.  

But, in truth, there is plenty of data to identify risks associated with older driving, as suggested by Elder Law Attorney Robert Fleming on his great Blog, citing statistics from the Center for Disease Control about risks for "fatal" accidents over age 75.  See "Driving, Aging and Dealing with Family Dynamics."

ElderLawGuy Jeff Marshall takes a very personal look at his own driving future on his Blog, and uses that moment of self reflection to also examine strategies for encouraging older drivers to give up the keys.   Read "What to Do When Dad Shouldn't Be Driving."   

This is another area of "social policy" where the laws are not uniform on how to intervene when the older driver refuses to stop driving or to make other appropriate adjustments in when and where to drive.  Here is a link from the insurance industry's Claims Journal to a recent "State by State Look at Driving Rules for Older Drivers." 

And, for a somewhat more theoretical approach to the topic, from University of Miami Law Professor Bruce Winick, the always thoughtful guru of the therapeutic jurisprudence movement, see "Aging, Driving and Public Health: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Approach."  Professor Winick proposes creation of community-based "safe driving centers," as a means of encouraging impaired drivers "voluntarily to cease or restrict their driving by offering inducements and alternative transportation solutions."

And of course, we have Professor Becky Morgan's preferred solution, the Jetsons' car that drives (and parks) itself.  Read "New Study on Autonomous Cars."  

April 3, 2014 in Consumer Information, Ethical Issues, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Professor Donna Harkness: "What Are Families For? Re-evaluating Return to Filial Responsibility Laws"

Donna_HarknessDonna Harkness, clinical professor of law and director of the Elder Law Clinic at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphries School of Law, has a new article on filial support laws in the most recent issue of the University of Illinois's Elder Law Journal.  In "What Are Families For? Re-valuating Return to Filial Responsibilities Laws,"  she concludes: 

"Despite their long history, filial responsibility laws have clearly failed to remedy existing needs. The lack of uniformity in filial responsibility laws, the difficulty and cost of enforcement, along with the fact that such laws provide no coverage to those elder Americans that have no adult children to look to for support, render them a limited response at best. In addition, to the extent that filial responsibility laws are enforced, evidence indicates they would be destructive to family ties and have the counterproductive effect of further eroding and destabilizing the network of support available to elders.

 

Furthermore, by focusing solely on economic support, filial responsibility laws do not address the fundamental need that all persons, and most especially the vulnerable elderly, have to be supported by caring relationships. To the extent that the institution of the family, however defined, is the key to ensuring that such relationships exist, it behooves us as a society to strengthen and foster family ties through policy initiatives that reward caring relationships."

 

March 18, 2014 in Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Court's Approval of Estate Account No Bar to Criminal Charges Against Trustee/Agent

In companion appellate cases, a brother and sister argued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was "collaterally estopped or otherwise barred by the constitution and/or statute" from bringing criminal charges against them arising from payments from a trust account, because of a civil order "approving" the final accounting in the estate.  Pointing out that the state was not a "party" to the Orphan's Court proceeding, even if it had an interest in proper disbursement of estate funds, the Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected the estoppel arguments as a "matter of law." 

The Court observed, "As [Charles] McCullough has indentified no ruling or filing in the certified record that made the Commonwealth a party to the Orphan's Court proceeding, we conclude that it was not a party. As such, collateral estoppel cannot apply."

The rulings in Commonwealth v. Charles McCullough and Commonwealth v. Kathleen McCullough, decided on February 27,  allow the siblings' cases to go forward on multiple criminal counts, including allegations of theft by unlawful taking and conspiracy.  The allegations go back to 2007, with multiple continuances of the scheduled trial dates.

The court appeared to credit the Commonwealth's theory that the complexity of the case was largely the result of the brother, a licensed attorney, who "intentionally obfuscated his roles as trustee and agent," creating confusion on the part of the bank, a co-trustee.  The brother was charged with "24 crimes arising from his actions as an agent and co-trustee for Shirley Jordan, now deceased. Jordan was approximately 90 years old, a widow without any children, and living in a senior living center when she executed a springing power of attorney in favor of McCollough."  The Court observed that it was estimated that "Jordan had assets of approximately fourteen million dollars at the time."  

Charles is accused of misusing Jordan's assets for his own benefit (including an alleged $10,000 gift to a charity allegedly connected to his family) and of arranging for his sister to be hired at an "exorbitant" rate of $60 per hour for companion services for the elderly woman, as compared to a "Department of Labor estimate of average wages of $8.63 to $9.74 per hour." 

The appellate opinions in the cases are fairly dry.  In fact, the sister was charged with theft of what, at first blush, seems like a fairly small sum, $4,575.01. 

The larger back story, however, includes the allegation that the sister was "hired" as a companion by her brother, using his authority under a Power of Attorney, just weeks after she had been fired and accused of misappropriating more than $1 million from her previous corporate employer. In a separate criminal proceeding, Kathleen McCullough was convicted in 2010 of theft from two companies that employed her, as detailed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  

March 6, 2014 in Crimes, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 27, 2014

A Closer Look at Assisted Suicide Charges in Commonwealth v. Mancini

As earlier reported on this Blog, the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County in Pennsylvania, dismissed the high profile criminal charges against Barbara Mancini, the nurse charged with "causing or aiding" the suicide of her aged father, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 2505(b).  The ruling reviewed testimony presented during a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, as required by the defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Much has been said by proponents and opponents of assisted suicide in connection with this ruling, but here is the actual opinion, all 47 pages.

The opinion demonstrates a high level of emotion for everyone involved in the case, including the judge.  There was a gag order in place during the last several months, so key details about the evidence or the arguments made by counsel are only now available.  So, please forgive me if I now use the blogger's prerogative to do more than just report the facts. Three starting points:

  • What strikes me as important about this ruling is that it should not be misconstrued as a "win" for those who claim there is a constitutional or other legal right to provide or receive assistance in death. At least not in Pennsylvania under its current law. 
  • Further, a careful reading of the opinion demonstrates the potential for more confusion (and additional cases) for those who interpret -- misinterpret -- Powers of Attorney, Advance Health Care Directives, Living Wills, or Do Not Resuscitate Orders as granting them legal authority to provide assistance in suicide. Again, that is not the current law in Pennsylvania, or in most other states.   
  • Finally, a careful reading of the opinion makes it clear -- at least to me -- that the hospice aides who called 9-1-1 in response to the facts in front of them, were acting within the law. They were responding to what the opinion documents fairly well as "admissions" of the criminal act of assisted suicide, facts that took the matter beyond the patient's right to accept or reject life-saving efforts. 

In terms of "proof" of a criminal act, the opinion demonstrates the importance of careful preparation of a criminal case when called upon to demonstrate the prima facie elements of the crime charged, as occurs during a preliminary hearing. That is the job of the prosecution team, not the hospice workers. The prosecution, in this instance the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, either failed or was unable to present independent proof of the facts alleged, and instead were focusing almost solely on the "admissions."  

In Pennsylvania, as the opinion discusses, the prosecution needed to present evidence of the person's intention to kill himself, action taken to effectuate the suicide, the third-party's intentional aid or assistance in that attempt, and evidence that the third party's action actually "caused" the attempted suicide.  Under Pennsylvania's corpus deliciti rule, the prosecution had to establish these elements without "just" relying on the defendant's own alleged admissios or confession. In particular, the opinion shows the importance of expert testimony to establish cause of death, needed in this case to explain "morphine toxicity." 

What the entire case also suggests -- not just the opinion -- is the need for Pennsylvania, and most states, to give fresh consideration to the topic of assisted suicide.  The record makes it pretty darn clear that Joe Yourshaw had lived a long life, fought the good fight, was ready to die, was tired of living in pain, and he was competent when talking about his wishes to die.  We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and say "this case isn't likely to happen again."

The tragedy associated with the last days of Joe Yourshaw and the confusion surrounding the circumstances under which Barbara Mancini, his daughter, was charged, are events that can and should permit Pennsylvania, like Oregon and Washington before it, to consider whether competent individuals with terminal illnesses should be permitted to work directly with health care professionals to make carefully considered decisions about whether to choose professional assistance with their death. Sons, daughters and spouses, whether or not "nurses," should not be put in this position, and other states have shown us there are options.

Some people will argue that the real tragedy would be to leave loving family members with no option but to violate the law (and either face the potential for criminal prosecution or "hide" the evidence) or turn a blind eye and deaf ear to a loved one's carefully considered pleas.  As you may be able to tell, while I think the hospice workers in this case were right to report the evidence they saw and heard that pointed to violation of Pennsylvania's current law, I'm one of those people ready to reconsider that law. 

February 27, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Crimes, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

AARP launches state legislative campaign for caregivers

Via AARP:

AARP recently launched a new multi-state caregiving advocacy campaign, with nearly every AARP State Office involved.  Working with governors, state legislators, other policymakers and community partners, we’re determined to advance policy options that will help family caregivers.  Two significant components of the campaign are:

The Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act.

10 AARP State Offices are working to pass CARE Act  through state legislation and/or regulation this year, with Oklahoma and Hawaii leading the way.

  • In Oklahoma SB 1536 – the Oklahoma version of the CARE Act – just passed the Senate and will be heard in the House soon.    Meanwhile, Governor Mary Fallin declared this month as “February Caregiver Month” to   honor the state’s 600,000 family caregivers.
  • AARP Hawaii, is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass Senate Bill 2264, the Hawaii equivalent of the CARE Act.  AARP members in Hawaii are now contacting members of the committee asking them to support the 169,000 family caregivers in the state by passing Senate Bill 2264.

By passing the CARE Act these states will ensure that:

  • The name of the family caregiver is recorded when a loved one is admitted into a hospital or rehabilitation facility.
  • The family caregiver is notified if the loved one is to be discharged to another facility or back home.
  • The facility must provide an explanation and live instruction of the medical tasks – such as medication management, injections, wound care, and transfers – that the family caregiver will perform at home.

For more on AARP’s advocacy: AARP Announces 2014 Advocacy Agenda: Across the States.

February 26, 2014 in Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Residents File Class Action Against For-Profit CCRC in California

Last week I blogged about tax questions facing some nonprofit senior living operations, especially nonprofit Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs).  This week, we pass on news of a federal court suit filed by residents of a for-profit CCRC, challenging the company's accounting and allocation of fees, especially entrance fees, paid by the residents.

Residents of Vi of Palo Alto (formerly operating in Palo Alto as "Classic Residences by Hyatt") in California are challenging what could be described as "upstream" diversion of corporate assets to the parent company, CC-Palo Alto Inc.  They contend the diversion includes money which should have been protected to fund local operations or to secure promised "refunds" of entrance fees.  Further, the residents allege the diversion of money has triggered a higher tax burden on the local operation, a burden they allege has improperly increased the monthly maintenance fees also charged to residents.  According to the February 10, 2014 complaint, Vi of Palo Alto is running a multi-million dollar deficit and the residents point to the existence of actuarial opinions that support their allegations. The complaint alleges breach of contract, common law theories of concealment, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory theories of misconduct, including alleged violation of California's Elder Abuse laws.   

Representatives of the company deny the allegations, as reported in detail in Senior Housing News on February 23.  A previous resident class action filed in state court against a Classic Residence of Hyatt CCRC, now called Vi of La Jolla, also in California, settled in 2008

February 26, 2014 in Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Federal Cases, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Pennsylvania Court Dismisses Charges for Daughter/Nurse Charged with Assisted Suicide

In August, 2013, we reported on the case of Barbara Mancini, charged with unlawful assisted suicide under Pennsylvania law, for the death of her 93 year old father, on hospice.  Mancini, a nurse, was alleged to have provided her father with a fatal dose of morphine. When hospice employees learned the circumstances of the transmission, a report was made that resulted in emergency removal of the father to the hospital, where he died four days later, followed by the criminal charges against the daughter.  Pennsylvania's Attorney General took over prosecution of the case, after the local D.A. reported a conflict of interest. 

On February 11, a county Common Pleas Court judge issued a multi-page opinion, dismissing the case against Mancini.  News reports point out that the court order was issued on the one year anniversary of her father's death.  The parties had been under a gag order.  Mancini has begun speaking about the case following the court's ruling, with support from organizations such as Compassion & Choices

My Elder Law Prof colleague Becky Morgan posted earlier today, asking whether "aid in dying" is a trend. More evidence in Pennsylvania that the answer is "yes," although we have not yet seen major support for changes at the legislative level in Pennsylvania.

My own reaction is that on several key fronts, including same sex marriage equality and legalization of marijuana, social change advocates have discovered there is enormous potential in "states' rights" -- once more the fortress for conservatives who opposed social change -- to build support, state by state, and thereby achieve cutting edge law reforms. Social media play increasingly important roles in organizing support. Perhaps this can be seen as a  "Face Book" approach to building momentum for social change and law reform.

February 13, 2014 in Crimes, Ethical Issues, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nat. Senior Citizens Law Center Calls for Stronger Rules re Assisted Living

The National Senior Citizens Law Center, with offices in California and D.C., has used its close observation of laws regulating "assisted living" across the U.S., to call for stronger rules in California, on the ground that "California lags far behind" in adopting moderns standards for quality of service and care.

NSCLC's latest report, "Best Practices in Assisted Living: Considering Potential Reforms for California, coauthored by Eric Carlson and Gwen Orlowski, is available on their website, along with the latest news on hearings before California legislative bodies on assisted living regulatory issues.

February 13, 2014 in Consumer Information, Housing, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Private Rights of Action Under Elder or Vulnerable Person Laws

Does your state have a statutory cause of action for "elder abuse?"  While all 50 states have some form of older adult protective service legislation that authorizes state authorities to investigate and intervene when reports are made of suspected abuse, not every state recognizes the right of the affected individual to seek damages or other relief from the perpetrator by proving violation of those same laws.  In states that do recognize a private right of action, the statutory grounds may provide a clear set of elements for proof of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or financial exploitation, thus supplementing the common law, and may also provide the prevailing party (sometimes limited to prevailing plaintiffs) with a right to recover attorneys fees.

California is probably the state with the best known statute authorizing private suits, including a right to seek attorneys fees, at Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15657 et seq.  California's law was  first adopted in 1991 as the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.  

However, the history of application of California's law has not been trouble-free.  In "Why Many Meritorious Elder Abuse Cases in California Are Not Litigated," (Winter 2013 Student Note, University of San Francisco Law Review), the author identifies several factors negatively affecting the likelihood of victim recovery, including lack of counsel willing to take cases, evidentiary issues such as confusion over burdens of proof, conflict within the victim's family affecting the lawyer-client relationship, and pressures to change or limit relief urged by institutional defendants.

February 12, 2014 in Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Elder Law & the Future: What Role for "Limited License Legal Technicians?"

What are "limited license legal technicians" or LLLTs?  As defined by the Supreme Court of Washington in an order issued in June of 2012, LLLTs are individuals who achieve certification through a new state program, authorizing them to provide specific legal services within specific substantive areas of law and law-related practice. 

Why create the LLLT alternative, especially in a country and during an economy where there are, arguably, more than enough underemployed lawyers?  As the Washington Supreme Court carefully details, the current civil legal system "is unaffordable not only to low income people but, as a [2003 state study] documented, moderate income people as well...."  For low income people, the "underfunded civil legal system is inadequate" to meet their very real needs.  For many who are moderate in income, "existing market rates for legal services are cost-prohibitive."  A new means of meeting public need is warranted, says the Court. 

Why is a system of licensing LLLTs in the State of Washington potentially very significant to the practice of Elder Law?  Washington has identified four areas of unmet civil law needs: Family Law, Immigration, Landlord/Tenant, and... yes, Elder Law. 

Very interesting!  The first practice area to be certified in Washington will be "Domestic Relations," with the Limited License Legal Technician Board expecting to begin accepting applications for a licensing examination in late summer or early fall of 2014.  No indication yet on when "Elder Law" LLLTs might be certified. In the roll-out design, applicants must first satisfy threshold educational standards, including holding at least an associate level degree, plus 45 credit hours at an ABA-approved program (which, for the moment at least, means an ABA approved law school). Details on the certification process are available on the Washington State Bar Association's website, here.   The University of Washington's School of Law has announced its "inaugural program" for LLLTs in family law to begin in the winter quarter of 2014. 

While I suspect this movement might make existing Elder Law attorneys a bit nervous, my own research points to the very real need for more widely available, trustworthy legal advice.  For example, Penn State Dickinson law students, with financial support of the Borchard Foundation's Center on Law and Aging, helped me to conduct focus groups drawn from a wide range of income, race, ethnicity and gender orientation, from locations all across Pennsylvania. In English and in Spanish, in inner cities and rural senior centers, we asked about their views and experiences with accessing legal assistance with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, insurance and other legal questions of concern to older persons.  As summarized here, fear of the cost of seeing a lawyer, and the difficulty in finding free or affordable attorneys who were "trustworthy," were  concerns clearly raised in each of the focus group sessions. That study pointed to the need for elder law specialists -- but not necessarily to a need for "just" Elder Law attorneys

Big thanks go to Penn State Dickinson Professor Laurel Terry, our in-house guru on all things cutting edge in the practice of law, for sharing with me the latest materials on Washington's LLLT program.  

February 6, 2014 in Consumer Information, Ethical Issues, Legal Practice/Practice Management, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Webcast: Dealing with Financial Institutions on POAs (or with other Fiduciary Authority)

Recently I received a communication from a professional agent, the head of a nonproft guardianship organization, and someone I have watched in action for eight years.  He and his team of carefully supervised agents work on behalf of elderly clients, disabled persons, and family members to handle financial matters. They are paid modestly, on a sliding scale, based on the client's income or estate. Sometimes they are operating as the court-appointed guardians, while other times their authority was granted by the principal through a POA, often with the cooperation (and sometimes the gratitude) of the family. 

This professional reported to me that they "are having increasingly difficult times using our authority for legitimate purposes, to the point where we have to subpoena information from banks as the guardian, because they will not accept our appointment."  Further, he reports "some banks are not honoring our POA or are adding unreasonable burdens, not required by law, leaving us unable to assist an older person."

Here is an experienced agent, who is trying do the job as a fiduciary in a highly professional manner. On the other side of the aisle are banks and other financial institutions, who have become understandably "gun shy" because of increasingly high profile cases of "bad" agents -- often family or "friends" -- who have misused their authority.

Well, as you might guess, this very topic has generated a timely CLE program!  "Dealing With Financial Institutions in Estates, Trusts and with POAs" is the title of a half-day program sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute that will take place at the following dates and times:

  • Tuesday, February 4, 2014, from 9 to 1:15, in Philadelphia, PA
  • Wednesday, February 26, 2014, from 9 to 1:15 in Pittsburgh, PA
  • Monday, March 3, 2014, from 9 to 1:15, in Mechanicsburg PA
  • Live Webcast on Monday, March 3, 2014 via webcasts.pbi.org

The program will focus on "bridging the divide" between financial institutions and agents, to help both sides better understand the powers and limitations conferred by law.  In additional to "family" fact patterns, the program will offer insights into fiduciaries acting on behalf of business owners. The faculty include experienced lawyers representing financial institutions and individuals -- plus one of those pesky law professor types. 

Pennsylvania, as is true in other states, has a number of potential changes in law pending at the state legislature, influenced in part by the Uniform Power of Attorney Act changes, first recommended for adoption by the states in 2006.  The program will provide the lates updates and trends.

For more, including remote access to the live webcast, go to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute's webpage, here.

January 30, 2014 in Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

"Whistleblower Laws in the 21st Century" - Penn State Dickinson Program on March 20

Senior Care -- in all of its guises -- is Big Business.  And much of that big business involves government contracts and government funding, and therefore the opportunity for whistleblower claims alleging mismanagement (or worse) of public dollars.  For example, in recent weeks, we've reported here on Elder Law Prof on the $30 million dollar settlement of a whistleblower case arising out of nursing home referrals for therapy; a $3 million dollar settlement of a whistleblower case in hospice care; and a $2.2 billion dollar settlement of a whistleblower case for off-prescription marketing of drugs, including drugs sold to patients with dementia

While the filing of charges in whistleblower cases often makes headlines, such as the recent front page coverage in the New York Times about the 8 separate whistleblower lawsuits against Health Management Associates in six states regarding treatment of patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid, the complexity of the issues can trigger investigations that last for years, impacting all parties regardless of the outcome, including the companies, their shareholders, their patients, and the whistleblowers, with the latter often cast into employment limbo.

Penn State Dickinson School of Law is hosting a program examining the impact of "Whistleblower Laws in the 21st Century: Greater Rewards, Heightened Risks, Increased Complexity" on March 20, 2014 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Trickett Hall, Penn State Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle

The speakers include Kathleen Clark, John S. Lehman Research Professor at Washington University Law  in St. Louis;  Claudia Williams, Associate General Counsel, The Hershey Company; Jeb White, Esq., with Nolan Auerbach & White; Scott Amey, General Counsel for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO); and Stanley Brand, Esq., Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government, Penn State Dickinson School of Law.    

Stay tuned for registration details, including availability of CLE credits.

January 28, 2014 in Crimes, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Banks and Powers of Attorney

The always thoughtful ElderLawGuy, Jeff Marshall, has a great blog post on the complications that can arise from use of powers of attorney, especially with financial institutions.  He uses Pennsylvania law to develop the topic, but there are certainly parallels in other states.

Read "What You Need to Knnow if the Bank Won't  Accept Your Power of Attorney."

January 22, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Mass. Supreme Court: Health Care Agent's Agreement to Arbitrate Not Binding on Nursing Home Patient

We've blogged several times in recent months about state court rulings on enforcement of arbitration provisions in nursing home admission contracts, especially in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Marmet Health Care Center Inc. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (2012).  See here, here and here.

The latest interesting decisions arrived on the same day, January 13, 2014, from the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  First, in Johnson v. Kindred Healthcare Inc., the court held that although a "health care agent" operating under a written advance directive had signed the nursing home's admission agreement containing a mandatory arbitration provision governing "all disputes," such action was not an authorized "health care decision," and thus was not binding on the patient under Massachusetts' health care proxy statute. 

The court notes that its decision is consistent with the view of the "majority" of courts in other jurisdictions that have considered similar issues, and emphasized the intention of the Massachusetts legislature in framing that state's governing statute:

"We frame the matter differently [than did a contrary decision by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in a 2007 decision]. That a competent principal could have decided to enter into an arbitration agreement does not answer the core question we  confront: whether our Legislature intended the term 'health care decision' to  include the decision to waive a principal's right of access to the courts and to  trial by jury by agreeing to binding arbitration. Our health care proxy statute reflects no such intent."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the nursing home's argument that its decision promotes "uncertainty concerning the scope of a health care agent's authority."  The court reversed the trial court order compelling "mediation or arbitration," and remanded for trial on the allegations that the nursing home's negligence caused the death of a resident of the facility. 

Second, on the same day, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC, having earlier transferred that case from the intermediate appellate court on its own initiative.  The son's signature as "responsible party" on the contract did not change the outcome:

"[E]ven assuming that Salvatore [the son] qualified as a responsible party for purposes of giving informed consent to medical treatment, this role did not empower him to sign an arbitration agreement on [his mother] Rita's behalf."

Further, the court rejected the nursing home's argument in the Licata case that theories of "ratification," "third-party beneficiary" or "equitable estoppel" compelled arbitration of the personal injury claim, concluding that "no inequity results from denying enforcement of the arbitration agreement." Liberty_Bell Photo by Bev Sykes, Davis Calif.

These decisions show the importance both of statutory authority and careful drafting of documents appointing agents for those wishing "freedom" from mandatory arbitration (hence, the Liberty Bell, courtesy of photographer Bev Sykes).  My first reading of these two decisions suggests that attorneys in Massachusetts and states with similar health care decision-making laws will still customize the language of POAs for "general agents" acting under powers of attorney, to make it clear that any grant of general authority does not include authority to bind the principal to mandatory arbitration of nursing home disputes, even if the agent also has authority to make health care decisions.  Other thoughts from our readers?

NAELA and AARP filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs' claims in these two cases, a fact expressly acknowledged by the court in both opinions.

January 16, 2014 in Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 13, 2014

Recent Moves to Protect Seniors from Fraud in Sale of Investment Products

A few years ago, one of the more perplexing cases handled by Penn State's Elder Protection Clinic involved the sale of deferred annuities (specifically, an annuity that would not fully mature for 20 years) to a senior, a widow in her early 80s. 

The individual was a ripe target for a manipulative sales pitch, having recently been diagnosed with early stages of dementia, even though at the moment of sale she was still living independently in her home.  She was able to talk and communicate; arguably she did not seem impaired.  She was told the product would save on taxes -- a pitch alluring to the frugal woman -- except for the fact that she really didn't need to save on taxes.  

If one lives long enough or has looming care needs even at an earlier age, an individual's post-death estate planning goals can conflict with pre-death care needs. In the clinic client's case, the woman's  annual income was modest, and her total estate was not large enough to trigger other major taxes.  The assets used to fund the annuity were virtually her entire savings.  Several months later, her daughter learned of the purchase, while exploring care options for her mother. Her mother was facing ineligibility for Medicaid, as the purchase of the deferred annuity would be treated as transfer, while the alternative was a large penalty if she cashed in the annuity "early." 

How often does this -- or worse -- happen? 

In "Still No Free Lunch: Recent Regulatory Initiatives to Protect Seniors From Fraud in the Sale of Investment Products," 41 Securities Regulation Law Journal 397 (Winter 2013) (paywall protected; available on Westlaw as 41 No 4 SECRLJ Art 2), attorneys  Ivan B. Knauer and Michele C. Zarychta address recent efforts to prevent or address fraudulent practices by an array of regulatory bodies. The 2013 piece updates their 2008 article (available at 36 No 4 SECRLJ Art 3). They outline several types of fraud and various financial products often marketed specifically to elders.  For example, they observe:

"One of the most pressing concerns of the regulatory entities is the improper -- or at least confusing-- use of 'senior' designations by professionals, implying that a professional has expertise or training in senior-specific issues.  FINRA [the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority] 'Rule of Conduct 2210 prohibits brokerage firms and brokers registered with FINRA from referencing nonexistent or self-conferred degrees or designations or referencing legitimate degrees or designations in a misleading manner.'  Misleading use of such designations may also violate federal securities laws or state laws."

The authors, who are experienced in representation of investment and financial service companies, recognize that business lawyers can help clients recognize the need to "take measures to ensure that their own policies and procedures protect seniors."  "Still No Free Lunch" is a reminder that attorneys who are advisers to companies can and should be a larger part of the solution, rather than be viewed as part of the problem. 

In reading the article, which emphasizes  regulators' programs to "educate" the public, I am struck by the likelihood that a key tipping point occurs when a senior's susceptibility to a manipulative pitch is outweighed by his or her weakened ability to recognize risk, regardless of any fraud-prevention education. That was true, for example, with our clinic's client.  Her life-time frugal nature was still intact; however, her judgment about whether she needed to "save" money on taxes was diminished. More education was not the solution for her, as she had probably lost the ability to appreciate its application.  Indeed, a common marketing practice to seniors -- free lunches or dinners disguised as "educational seminars" -- trades upon that very fact, thus giving rise to the "no free lunch" theme in both articles by authors Knauer and Zarychta.

The authors detail stepped up enforcement efforts, including recent measures by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, established in 2010. 

Hat tip to Penn State Dickinson Law Professor Lance Cole, who shared this interesting article.

January 13, 2014 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Property Management, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, January 10, 2014

Medicaid Puts New "Wrinkle" on Old Topic of Marriage Penalties

I can remember when tax-savvy couples might plan their wedding dates according to the tax impact, and thus there was talk in political circles about the "Marriage Tax Penalty." 

Recently, one of our Elder Law Prof Blog readers wrote to suggest we post articles about the impact of late-in-life marriage on Medicaid eligibility.  Good idea!  Many might assume that a well-drafted prenuptial agreement should preserve a split in retirement savings.  That assumption could well be dangerous -- in the context of Medicaid.  Here are links to a few recent articles, with brief excerpts to whet the appetite for reading more:

Late Life Love (Part II), by Monica Franklin, 49 Tennessee Bar Journal 30 (Feb. 2013):

"When discussing prenuptial agreements and marriage, we need to advise our clients that if one spouse needs Medicaid to pay for long-term care, the assets of both spouses will be considered by the Medicaid agency ([Tennessee] Department of Human Services, DHS). However, if the couple chooses cohabitation, DHS only considers the assets of the disabled partner. This information is crucial for couples considering late-life marriage."

Paying for Long-Term Care in Illinois, by William Siebers and Zach Hasselbaum, 100 Illinois Bar Journal 536 (October 2012), noting that with changes to Medicaid law, effective in Illinois in 2012:

"Eligibility for long-term care assistance will be denied  [in Illinois] if the community spouse or institutionalized spouse refuses to disclose assets during the application process. Prior to this change, a community spouse with separately owned assets held for at least five years could decline to have those assets considered in the application process for the institutionalized spouse.  This scenario commonly arose in second marriage situations. . . . "

Gray Divorce and Remarriage, by William DaSilva and Steven Eisman, 83 New York State Bar Journal 26 (July/August 2011):

"Another growing trend in the practice of elder law -- relating to both matrimonial law and health care planning -- is the use of so-called 'Medicaid divorces.' In fact, the use of Medicaid gifting and Medicaid planning received judicial sanction from New York's highest court in 2000 in [the case of] In re Shah, [95 NY 2d 148 (2000)].  In this type of divorce, the 'spouse in the community' ... stands to lose a lifetime's worth of savings unless a health care plan is devised that provides care for the ill or incapacitated spouse and simultaneously protects the assets of the spouse in the community so that both spouses do not end up impoverished wards of the state.  A prenuptial agreement alone will not defeat a claim of Medicaid."

In my admittedly quick search for articles on the topic of prenuptial agreements and Medicaid, I did not find a comprehensive discussion by academics or law students in an academic law review. Rather, as suggested by the above citations, the articles I found were all state specific, from state bar journals.  Perhaps one of our law school colleagues has a work-in-progress or article to share?  Or, alternatively, perhaps some of our academic readers are looking for a good, comprehensive research topic for the future.

For our lay readers, this is a good opportunity to remind you this Blog is not intended to be a source of legal advice for specific issues.  Of course, we do recommend that you consult with an experienced elder law attorney for state-specific advice!  

January 10, 2014 in Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Property Management, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)