Articles Tagged with New York elder law

MOLST Forms, What Are They?

Easily identifiable by its bright pink color, another advance directive has been approved for use in New York medical treatment and healthcare administration. Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment are medical forms similar to a DNR Order, being that they both provide for life of end care preferences. However, Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) not only allows a patient to refuse resuscitation in the event it is needed, but it also allows for a patient to state when they would allow or request it. Once the form was approved in 2008, EMT agencies now may use the MOLST form without needing a non-hospital DNR order, however, they must honor the DNR bracelet if worn by the patient or a non-hospital DNR form if it is on file.

How it Differs from DNR Orders

While most of us know that the baby boomer population is vast, many do not realize the impact this population will have as they start to retire over the next few decades. In fact, over the next 20 years, 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65 everyday. Between 65-70 years old has been the age of retirement for many, with some retiring early and some pushing through another decade of work. However, as this generation gets older, their need for care will continue to grow.

Federal Level

In late June, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Home Care Association of America v. Weil, a case that was attempting to deprive home care workers of their ability to qualify for minimum wage and additionally, for overtime pay for those hours worked over 40 per week. These home care workers have been part of the ‘Fight for 15’ movement to get equal pay and higher pay for minimum wage. Home care workers have previously been labeled by the Labor Department as ‘companions,’ which does not allow them to qualify as employees who are subject to minimum wage and overtime pay. The rules governing home care workers were not fixed until this past year, when the Labor Department determined that home care employers needed to follow the same rules as any other employer and pay their employees according to minimum wage standards.

When writing a will, many people seek to ensure that certain people in their lives get specific things, such as a family heirloom necklace, property, or an allotted amount of money. The gifting of property or assets to a certain person through the provisions of your will is called a bequest. There are few types of bequests and different situations in which to use them.

(1) Specific Bequest: It is the gifting of a specified property or asset to an identified person or entity, distinguished from the property in the estate. For example, a specific bequest would be gifting your home to your son, or gifting your diamond earrings to your niece. The main issue faced by the estate is when, upon death, the specific gift that is to be given, i.e. the property or the diamond earrings, are no longer owned by the testator. In this situation, the intended beneficiary then gets nothing, because there is nothing to satisfy or substitute from the estate.

(2) General Bequest: A general bequest is what most people think of when they think of gifts in a will. This bequest is a gift that is payable from the assets of the estate. Most commonly seen are provisions gifting a specified amount of money to a certain person, for example, $10,000 to my nephew, or a stock or securities bond. Unlike specific bequests, these type of bequests are not for a specified item, so other assets in the estate may be sold to satisfy the gift if it is not available when distribution comes.

It seems that Muhammad Ali’s estate is destined for trouble, similar to other celebrity estates that we have covered on this blog recently. It is unknown if the boxing legend died with a will, but even if he did, a will contest may be likely. Forbes reports that Mr. Ali died with an estate worth in between $50 and $80 million, had nine recognized children, four different marriages, and struggled with a debilitating disease that affects the mind. These are the circumstances that set the stage for a drawn out estate contest.

Troublesome Children

The large amount of children Mr. Ali had, as well as his four marriages, makes the number of people who may have an interest in contesting Mr. Ali’s estate quite high. One child in particular, Muhammad Ali Jr., has been estranged from his father since Mr. Ali’s fourth and final marriage in 1986 and has been cut off from the family fortune ever since. Ali Jr. in particular blames Mr. Ali’s fourth wife for driving him and his father apart.

GROWING NEED

More ten million elderly Americans rely exclusively on their Social Security pension as their sole means of support. Approximately 90 percent of senior citizens receive some sort of income from Social Security and approximately half of those relied on Social Security for at least half of their monthly income. It keeps approximately 35 percent of elderly Americans from dipping below the federal poverty line. To say that Social Security is vital to this population is an understatement. Included within that population are a subset of individuals who do not directly receive their income from the Social Security Administration but instead rely on a representative payee to manage their money and pay their bills.

The incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other related cognitive impairments increases with age and with people living longer, there will naturally be an increase in such conditions and thus a greater need for more Social Security representative payees. The Social Security Administration’s own Inspector General estimated in 2010 that at least one million elderly Americans over the age of 85 need a representative payee but did not have one. Within this group there is concern that there are de facto representative payee who were not formally approved or vetted by the Social Security Administration and could be perpetuating financial abuse of the beneficiary. Of the existing pool of representative payees, approximately three out of four are family members.

NEW RULES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES

Social security survivor benefits may seem like a relatively straightforward issues to understand. Indeed, it can be for the majority of people, but with the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must recognize the right of all couples, including same sex couples, to marry, the issue of social security survivor benefits for spouses and even for children should at least be touched upon. The opinion in Obergefell may be as monumental of an opinion as the Court ever penned. While only history will tell, the social consequences may be of the same magnitude as the Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Little Rock Board of Education, requiring racial integration of schools across the country.

The implications ripple throughout the law, from tax law to social security benefits to family law, estate planning, bankruptcy and even elder law. Less than a year prior to the writing of this blog there was a patchwork of treatment for same sex couples, which was anything but similar in its treatment of two similarly situated couples, with the only difference being what jurisdiction the couple lived in. Social Security indeed denied some same sex life partners survivor benefits when a couple resided with each other as spouses for decades. Even before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell some who be widows/widowers (but for the state law denial of this right) sued the Social Security for this disparate treatment.

It is a fortunate state of affairs that it is happening less and less, with the requirement for every American obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (often called Obamacare), that some people do not have proper health insurance coverage for a catastrophic injury. It is still unfortunate that is happens often enough. As such, either a loved one or when you are well enough retain an attorney in a personal injury suit against the offending party or entity for your past pain and suffering, future anticipated pain and suffering and future medical bills.

Most personal injury attorneys know that any settlement or jury (or even judge if the matter proceeded to trial without a jury) award should earmark or indicate the amount of the award or settlement for your future medical expenses because the government will get involved and assert a lien over any financial award for medical expenses. This overall schema enables you to effectuate a meaningful change in your life, by satisfying the state’s obligation to recoup its medical costs and leaves some money to you to live at a level above the basic minimum that medicaid insures.

It must be asked, however, what of the cases where there is no designation of the settlement or verdict that speaks to the amount awarded for medical expenses and what is pain and suffering or other line awards. Both Congress and the Federal Supreme Court dealt with these issues. Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(a)(1) as part of the Social Security Act that prohibits the government from asserting a medicaid lien against the property of a medicaid recipient, except under certain clearly delineated circumstances. One of those delineated circumstances is when the state may seek recovery for “any medical assistance correctly paid”. The Supreme Court dealt with this issue in 2013, in the case of Wos v. E.M.A. when it ruled that a state may only asset a medicaid lien against that portion of a personal injury settlement or verdict that is specifically designated for medical expenses.

LAWS THROUGHOUT THE STATES

More than half the states have filial support laws on their books. Most states that still have filial support laws as part of its statutory code rarely enforce them. The last time that Georgia successfully enforced its filial support law was 1936. Filial support laws are now coming back into focus, as judged by the relatively recent case of John Pittas in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania more than most states has a more regular history of enforcement of its filial support statute, as judged from the several cases from 1994 and 2003. Louisiana recently enacted a filial responsibility act on June 29, 2015. North Dakota enforced its filial support law in 2013 when Four Season’s Healthcare Center sought payment from Elden Linderkamp, although the outcome of that case placed much weight on an allegedly fraudulent transfer of the parents land. These cases are the outliers, however.

ENFORCEMENT IN NEW YORK

Contact Information