Friday, November 4, 2016

Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. is the Keynote Speaker at the Upcoming Caring for Caregivers Conference

East Rutherford's Access for All Committee Hosts the Second Annual Caring for Caregivers Conference on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the East Rutherford Community Center.


The Access for All Committee is a county-wide, diversity and inclusion initiative with the goal of ensuring special needs residents in Bergen County communities have access to the information, services, resources, and buildings operated by each municipality. Access for All brings together municipal and business leaders, public safety officials, and volunteers to share information about services and resources, legislative updates, and support options available on a county, state or federal basis.


At the upcoming Caring for Caregivers Confereence, caregivers will be provided with critical information and resources that support the needs of their special needs or “differently-abled” family members. Keynote Speaker Donald Vanarelli, attorney specializing in planning for elder care and unique issues related to parents of children with disabilities, will open the evening by sharing key information about legal documents required for parents of children with special needs.


The second half of the conference features guest panelists: Anthony Guzzo (architect with Guzzo + Guzzo Architects), Frank Recanati (Construction Official), and Dan Kotkin (Information Specialist with Bergen County, Division on Disabilities). The panel, moderated by East Rutherford Access for All Committee Chair Sherrill Curtis, will address audience questions regarding trends in home design for special needs family members, easing the renovation process, and available county/state resources.


Seating is limited. Pre-registration recommended. Registration information may be viewed on the East Rutherford website Calendar of Events or Access for All pages at: www.eastrutherfordnj.net.


Access for All meets hosts monthly meetings on the last Monday of each month, 7-8 p.m. at the East Rutherford Community Center.


About Donald D. Vanarelli 

Recipient of the Marilyn Askin Lifetime Achievement Award from the New Jersey State Bar Association's Elder and Disability Law Section, Donald D. Vanarelli is a Certified Elder Law Attorney, and a member of the Council of Advanced Practitioners of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. Mr. Vanarelli is also an Accredited Veterans Attorney and an Accredited Professional Mediator. He has successfully litigated cases in New Jersey's Supreme Court and in federal court. Mr. Vanarelli represents seniors, the disabled and their families in estate planning, financing long-term medical care, nursing home issues, qualifying for Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid and other public benefits, special needs planning, and litigation, including probate, elder abuse and guardianship lawsuits.


About The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli 

Located in Westfield, New Jersey, the firm provides a broad range of legal services for seniors, the disabled and their families. The law firm guides clients through complex legal areas including public benefits planning, trial advocacy and court procedures, the administrative process, as well as estate and gift tax laws.


Contact: Ginny Morrissey, The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli, Tel: 908-232-7400, Email: gmorrissey@VanarellilLaw.com


For additional information concerning special needs trusts and disability planning, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/special-needs-disability-planning/

The post Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. is the Keynote Speaker at the Upcoming Caring for Caregivers Conference appeared first on Westfield Elder Law Attorney | New Jersey Guardianship Lawyer | Union County NJ 07090.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

November is Alzheimer's Awareness Month


Download (PDF, 104KB)


President Obama has proclaimed November 2016 as National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month. The President has called upon the people of the United States “to learn more about Alzheimer's disease and support the individuals living with this disease and their caregivers.”


Alzheimer's disease is an irreversible, progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and, eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks. In most people with Alzheimer's, symptoms first appear in their mid-60s. Estimates vary, but experts suggest that more than 5 million Americans may have Alzheimer's.


The symptoms of Alzheimer's vary from person to person. In general, Alzheimer's disease progresses in four  stages:



  1. Early Stage Alzheimer's Disease – Memory problems are typically one of the first signs of cognitive impairment related to Alzheimer's disease. Some people with memory problems have a condition called mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In MCI, people have more memory problems than normal for their age, but their symptoms do not interfere with their everyday lives. In addition, decline in non-memory aspects of cognition, such as word-finding, vision/spatial issues, and impaired reasoning or judgment, may signal the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Movement difficulties and problems with the sense of smell have also been linked to MCI.

  2. Mild Alzheimer's Disease-at this stage, people experience more than just forgetfulness. Problems can include wandering and getting lost, trouble handling money and paying bills, repeating questions, taking longer to complete normal daily tasks, and personality and behavior changes. People are often diagnosed in this stage.

  3. Moderate Alzheimer's Disease-In this stage, damage occurs in areas of the brain that control language, reasoning, sensory processing, and conscious thought. Memory loss and confusion grow worse, and people begin to have problems recognizing family and friends. They may be unable to learn new things, carry out multi-step tasks such as getting dressed, or cope with new situations. In addition, people at this stage may have hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia and may behave impulsively.

  4. Severe Alzheimer's Disease-People with severe Alzheimer's cannot communicate and are completely dependent on others for their care. Near the end, the person may be in bed most or all of the time as the body shuts down.


Scientists don't yet fully understand what causes Alzheimer's disease in most people, and researches are just beginning to develop treatment regimens.


Visit the National Institute on Aging website to learn more about Alzheimer's disease basics.


The National Institute of Health has issued a fact sheet about the causes, diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease:

Download (PDF, 178KB)


For additional information concerning guardianships and fiduciary services, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/guardianship-fiduciary-services/

The post November is Alzheimer's Awareness Month appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Monday, October 24, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court to Define What an “Appropriate” Education Is for Children with Disabilities

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., public schools must provide children with disabilities a “free appropriate public education.” When a school district cannot provide a student with an appropriate education, the IDEA mandates the school district must reimburse the family for the costs of sending their child to a private institution that can provide an appropriate education. However, parents, educators, and courts across the country have disagreed on exactly what constitutes an “appropriate” education for special needs students.


The key mechanism by which schools attempt to meet the IDEA requirement to provide an appropriate education is the individualized education program, or IEP. Each IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit on the child. Some federal courts have said that an appropriate education is provided by an IEP which provides a child with a just above-trivial educational benefit, while other courts have required that IEPs provide a substantial or “meaningful educational benefit.” This divide over the level of educational benefit the IDEA demands has resulted in widely different educational experiences for special needs students across the country.


U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which the Court will define what an “appropriate” education is for children with disabilities.  In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, petitioner, Endrew F. (Drew), was diagnosed at age 2 with autism which impaired Drew's “cognitive functioning, language and reading skills, and his social and adaptive abilities.”


Drew attended public school from preschool through 4th grade and received an IEP from the school district each year. In 2nd and 3rd grade, Drew began experiencing behavioral problems in school, such as yelling, crying, and dropping to the floor. These problems became more frequent and severe in 4th grade. Following Drew's behavioral deterioration and lack of academic progress, his parents rejected the IEP proposed for his 5th grade year because it was mostly unchanged from the ineffective 4th grade IEP. Given the school's failure to address Drew's needs, his parents notified the school district that they were withdrawing Drew from the public school and would be seeking tuition reimbursement. They then placed Drew in a private school that specializes in educating children with autism. Drew's placement at his new school was appropriate under the IDEA, and he made “academic, social and behavioral progress” there.


Drew's parent's application for tuition reimbursement from the school district was denied, and they appealed.  Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the parent's claim, holding that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to guarantee “some” educational benefit, which it interpreted to be any educational benefit that is “more than de minimis,” and held that the IEP prepared by the school district provided the educational benefit required by the law.


In their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Drew's parents argued that an IEP must be designed to confer a substantial educational benefit to a child with disabilities, a higher standard than that applied by the federal appeals court.  The school district disagreed, arguing that it need only provide a minimal educational benefit. In its forthcoming decision, the Supreme Court is expected to define the level of educational benefit that public schools must provide under the IDEA.


To read the petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Drew's case, click here.


For additional information concerning special needs trusts and disability planning, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/special-needs-disability-planning/

The post U.S. Supreme Court to Define What an “Appropriate” Education Is for Children with Disabilities appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. to Present at the 2016 Elder Law College

Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. (http://VanarelliLaw.com/) will present at the 2016 Elder Law College given by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education on December 14, 2016 at the Crowne Plaza, located at 690 Route 46 East, Fairfield, New Jersey.


Mr. Vanarelli will provide an overview of New Jersey law concerning guardianships and conservatorships. For additional information regarding this event, attorneys may contact the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE) at 732-214-8500 or visit their website at http://www.njicle.com/.


Don't miss out on this unique opportunity to learn from some of New Jersey's most experienced Elder Law practitioners!


For additional information regarding guardianships, conservatorships and fiduciary services, as well as elder law and estate planning issues, contact the Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli at 908-232-7400, or visit them online at http://VanarelliLaw.com/.



Download (PDF, 258KB)







































Moderator:

Donald M. McHugh, Esq.,CELA, CAP,  McHugh & Macri (East Hanover)

Speakers:

Cathyanne Pisciotta, Esq.

Pisciotta & Menasha, LLC (North Brunswick)
Jonathan Bressman, Esq.

Law Office of Jonathan Bressman, LLC (Fairfield)
John W. Callinan, Esq., CELA

Past Chair of the NJSBA Elder and Disability Law Section

Law Office of John W. Callinan (Wall)
Rachel Frett

Senior Home Care Services (Morristown)
Linda Ershow-Levenberg, Esq., CELA

Fink Rosner Ershow-Levenberg, LLC (Clark)
Lauren Marinaro, Esq.

Past Chair of the NJSBA Elder and Disability Law Section

Fink Rosner Ershow-Levenberg, LLC (Clark)
Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq.

Recipient, Lifetime Achievement Award, NJ State Bar, Elder and Disability Law Section

Certified Elder Law Attorney by the ABA-accredited National Elder Law Foundation

Past Chair, NJSBA Elder and Disability Law Section

Law Offices of Donald D. Vanarelli (Westfield)
Shirley B. Whitenack, Esq.

Immediate Past President, National Association of Elder Law Attorneys

Past Chair, NJSBA Elder and Disability Law Section

Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP (Florham Park)

 











About the Program:
Elder Law Practice is one of the top growing areas of the law nationwide.


If you are looking for an opportunity to earn CLE credit while brushing up on the latest in Estate Planning and other senior law matters this seminar is for you.


America is graying, and more attorneys are being asked to handle issues involving aging clients. This is a growing segment of the population and their issues are unique. In just one day, this novice level seminar will address these issues and provide you with the solid foundation and practical strategies that you need when handling elder law matters.


Don't miss out on this extraordinary opportunity to learn from some of New Jersey's most experience Elder Law practitioners!


 















































This comprehensive one-day college will provide you with everything you need to confidently handle Elder Law matters in your practice, including:
Tax and estate planning strategies
Medicaid planning
Probate and guardianship mediation and litigation
Social security issues
Guardianships and conservatorships
Special needs trusts
The new waiver process under Managed Long Terms Services and Supports (MISTS)
Nursing home admissions, discharges and the protected rights of clients
Home care options
      ..and more!

 



























CLE Credits:
NJ CLE information: This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 6.7 hours of total CLE credit.
NJ CLE: This program has been approved for 6.7 credits

(50 minute hour)
PA CLE: 5.5 substantive credits pending ($24 fee – separate check payable to NJICLE must be submitted at the end of the program)
NY CLE: 6.5 professional practice credits
CPE: 6.5 taxation credits

Door Registration: $225











Would you like to fax your registration to NJICLE?

Click here for PDF registration form.
Group Registrations:

Interested in registering a group for this program? Click here for a PDF order form.


About Donald D. Vanarelli 

Recipient of the Marilyn Askin Lifetime Achievement Award from the New Jersey State Bar Association's Elder and Disability Law Section, Donald D. Vanarelli is a Certified Elder Law Attorney, and a member of the Council of Advanced Practitioners of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. Mr. Vanarelli is also an Accredited Veterans Attorney and an Accredited Professional Mediator. He has successfully litigated cases in New Jersey's Supreme Court and in federal court. Mr. Vanarelli represents seniors, the disabled and their families in estate planning, financing long-term medical care, nursing home issues, qualifying for Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid and other public benefits, special needs planning, and litigation, including probate, elder abuse and guardianship lawsuits.


About The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli 

Located in Westfield, New Jersey, the firm provides a broad range of legal services for seniors, the disabled and their families. The law firm guides clients through complex legal areas including public benefits planning, trial advocacy and court procedures, the administrative process, as well as estate and gift tax laws.


Contact: Ginny Morrissey, The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli, Tel: 908-232-7400, Email: gmorrissey@VanarellilLaw.com


For additional information concerning guardianships and fiduciary services, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/guardianship-fiduciary-services/

The post Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. to Present at the 2016 Elder Law College appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Medicare's Annual Open Enrollment Period Runs From October 15 to December 7. It's Now Time to Reassess Medicare Choices

Medicare's annual open enrollment period runs from October 15 to December 7–the period when enrollees can shop for new coverage. Now is the time to review your options to determine if you should switch plans.


During Medicare's annual open enrollment period, you may (1) enroll in a Medicare Part D (prescription drug) plan; (2) change your Part D prescription drug plan if you currently have a plan; (3)  return to traditional Medicare (Parts A and B) from a Medicare Advantage (Part C, managed care) plan (A Medicare Advantage plan is the managed care alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare); (4) enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan; or, (5) change Medicare Advantage plans.


If you're happy with what you have, there's no need to do anything during the annual open enrollment period. However, if you have Part D prescription drug coverage, or are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, there are at least two reasons to shop for new coverage. First, savings. Medicare enrollees who changed coverage between 2013 and 2014 saved $190 annually on their monthly premiums on average, and lowered their annual out-of-pocket limit by $401. Second, changes in formularies. Part D plans routinely change their formularies–the list of medications that are covered–and the rules under which they are covered. The plan also could drop coverage of a medication altogether. Shopping for new coverage during open enrollment period can reveal all formulary changes in Part D plans.


The best online tool for shopping plans is the Medicare Plan Finder at the Medicare website. It eliminates much of the guesswork in navigating plan choices; it allows you to plug in your Medicare number and drugs (you'll need each drug's name and dosage). The tool then displays a list of possible plans likely to meet your needs; their estimated cost, premiums, and deductibles; which drugs are covered; and customer-satisfaction ratings. The finder also will give you advice about drug utilization and restrictions.


Beneficiaries can go to www.medicare.gov or call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) to make changes in their Medicare prescription drug and health plan coverage.


Here are more resources for navigating Medicare's open enrollment period:








(Based on an article on the ElderLaw Answers website. Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. is a member of ElderLaw Answers.)  


For additional information concerning NJ elder law and special needs planning visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/legal-services/

The post Medicare's Annual Open Enrollment Period Runs From October 15 to December 7. It's Now Time to Reassess Medicare Choices appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Lawsuit to Prevent Medicaid Agency from Counting Dead Husband's Assets


Plaintiff, Eileen Flade, was a nursing home resident. On April 12, 2016, plaintiff applied for Medicaid benefits through the Bergen County Board of Social Services. Soon thereafter, plaintiff's husband passed away. At the time of his death, plaintiff's husband owned assets totaling approximately $70,000. Plaintiff owned less than $1,000. In his will, plaintiff's husband left plaintiff the smallest share of his estate permitted by law, called the “elective share.” The elective share is equal to approximately one-third of the estate. However, plaintiff did not claim the one-third elective share she was legally permitted to pursue in court.


On June 9, 2016, plaintiff's application for Medicaid benefits was denied. The Board of Social Services found that all of her late husband's assets were available to plaintiff, thereby putting her over the resource limit of $2,000 for Medicaid eligibility. After being denied for Medicaid benefits, plaintiff feared being discharged from her nursing facility due to non-payment.


In the following month, July 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the federal Medicaid Act. In August 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from (1) treating the assets of her late husband's estate as a resource that she has access to for her own care, and (2) denying Medicaid during the pendency of the litigation. Defendants opposed the motion, and cross-moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Defendants argued that even if it were true that she did not have access to her husband's assets, plaintiff made gifts during Medicaid's “lookback period.” The lookback period is the 60-month, or 5 year, period during which the Medicaid agency scrutinizes the applicant's assets  to ensure that the applicant did not dispose of or transfer assets for less than fair market value in order to qualify for Medicaid. Gifts made during the lookback period would disqualify plaintiff from receiving Medicaid benefits for a period of time.


The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motions. The court held that plaintiff did not have access to her late husband's assets and, as a result, plaintiff was reasonably likely to succeed on the merits of her claim supporting an injunction. However, the court refused to enter an injunction directing the state to provide Medicaid during the pendency of the lawsuit. According to the Court, plaintiff failed to 1) demonstrate she would suffer irreparable harm, because she had made lifetime gifts during the 5 year look back period that would result in a penalty period; 2) forcing the state to provide Medicaid during the pendency of litigation but prior to a eligibility determination would harm the State; and 3) it would not be in the public's interest to compel the state to pay Medicaid prematurely .


The case is annexed here – Flade v. Connolly, 2016 WL 5339725 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2016) (unpublished)

The post Preliminary Injunction Denied in Lawsuit to Prevent Medicaid Agency from Counting Dead Husband's Assets appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

“Graduates Timeline” Helps Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Transition from School to Adulthood

“Graduates Timeline” Helps Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Transition from School to Adulthood


New Jersey's Division of Developmental Disabilities, an agency within the Department of Human Resources, provides public funding for services and supports that assist New Jersey adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who are aged 21 and older to live as independently as possible.


The New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities recently issued the 2017 Timeline for Graduates Aging Out of the School System, also known as the “Graduates Timeline.” This annual timeline is issued to help students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and their families in planning for the transition from school to adulthood.



Download (PDF, 359KB)


The Graduates Timeline is annexed here – 2017 Timeline for Graduates Aging Out of the School System


For additional information concerning special needs trusts and disability planning, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/special-needs-disability-planning/

The post “Graduates Timeline” Helps Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Transition from School to Adulthood appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Court Directs Son and His Family to Vacate Mother's Home, Allowing Home to be Sold to Pay for Mother's Care Needs

The plaintiff, Marjorie Fister, is the mother of defendant Kevin Edward Fister. In 2010, the defendant, along with his wife and four adult children, moved into plaintiff's home with her. Mrs. Fister's health declined and, in 2012, she moved into her daughter's New York home. However, the defendant and his family remained in Mrs. Fister's home. Defendant refused a request from his mother, through her attorney, to leave her home so that it could be sold to provide funds for her care at an assisted living facility. He and his family remained in Mrs. Fister's home, residing rent-free.


Therefore, Mrs. Fister filed a complaint for a writ of possession against the defendant and his family. In response, the defendant filed a Chancery Division action claiming that his mother was incapacitated and unable to manage her affairs. In April 2013, the Chancery Division determined that Mrs. Fister was competent, and the defendant's complaint was dismissed. Mrs. Fister filed a motion for summary judgment in February 2014, seeking to eject the defendant and his family from her home.


In the meantime, the defendant also filed a New York complaint for guardianship. That action was successful and, in December 2014, the New York court declared Mrs. Fister incapacitated and appointed Paul Mederos, Esq. as her guardian.


In March 2015, the New Jersey trial court held oral argument on the plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion. During oral argument, the defendant's attorney acknowledged that the defendant had no evidence to document that he had an ownership interest in his mother's home. Mrs. Fister's guardian was present at oral argument, and he advised the court that he had already applied to the New York court for permission to sell Mrs. Fister's home to pay for her care. The New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and signed a writ of possession, concluding that the defendant had no ownership interest and no right to continue to live there rent-free. The defendant appealed that decision.


In April 2015, the New York court granted the guardian's request to sell Mrs. Fister's home.


Oral argument on the writ of possession order was held before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. At oral argument, the defendant's counsel advised the court that the defendant and his family had vacated Mrs. Fister's home in response to the writ of possession, and conceded to the court that the defendant's appeal was now moot.


The appellate court agreed, and dismissed the appeal.


A copy of Fister v. Fister  can be found here – Fister v. Fister


For additional information concerning nursing home law and litigation, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/nursing-home-law-litigation/

For additional information concerning probate litigation and will contests, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/will-contests-probate-litigation-elder-abuse-actions/#iplwc

The post Court Directs Son and His Family to Vacate Mother's Home, Allowing Home to be Sold to Pay for Mother's Care Needs appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. to Present at the Elder & Disability Law Section Roundtable Discussion on Medicaid Appeals

Westfield, NJ – October 6, 2016 - Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. (http://VanarelliLaw.com/) will participate in the New Jersey State Bar Association's Elder & Disability Law Section Roundtable Discussion on Medicaid Appeals to be held on October 13, 2016 at the New Jersey Law Center in New Brunswick, NJ.


Mr. Vanarelli will present on “Appealing a Final Agency Decision to the Superior Court, Appellate Division,” an overview of the current laws governing the Medicaid appeals process in the administrative forum and state court.


For additional information regarding elder law issues, including Medicaid applications and appeals, contact the Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli at 908-232-7400, or visit them online at http://VanarelliLaw.com/.


Information about the New Jersey State Bar Association's Elder & Disability Law Section Roundtable Discussion on Medicaid Appeals can be found below:  





















New Jersey State Bar Association

Elder & Disability Law Section

Roundtable Discussion



Medicaid Appeals


Thursday, October 13 ∙ 9-11 a.m.

New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick


2.4 CLE credits


$29 per person (with CLE credits); $6 per person (without CLE credits)



About the Program



Learn where to file a Medicaid appeal, in state or federal court, when a Medicaid application is denied.


Roundtable Coordinator

Benjamin J. Menasha

Pisciotta & Menasha, LLC


Speakers

John W. Callinan

Law Office of John W. Callinan


Daniel J. Jurkovic

Law Office of Daniel J. Jurkovic


Donald D. Vanarelli

Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli


Jane Fearn-Zimmer

The Rothkoff Law Group


Download the registration form and fax to 732-249-2414, or login to register online. To register by phone, call Member Services 732-249-5000.


For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/medicaid-applications-medicaid-appeals/

For additional information concerning Medicaid and public benefits planning, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/medicaid-public-benefits-planning/

The post Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. to Present at the Elder & Disability Law Section Roundtable Discussion on Medicaid Appeals appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Monday, October 3, 2016

New Jersey's State Estate Tax To Be Eliminated

New Jersey lawmakers reached an agreement on Friday, September 30th which, among other things, will phase out New Jersey's state estate tax. The New Jersey estate tax exemption, presently $675,000, will increase to $2 million after January 1, 2017. The estate tax will then be eliminated after January 1, 2018. An official vote on an estate tax phase-out bill is scheduled in the New Jersey legislature for Wednesday, October 5, 2016, and the bill is expected to pass.


In New Jersey, the state's estate tax is levied on any estate valued at more than $675,000.  The $675,000 exempt amount is the lowest estate tax threshold in the nation. The state's estate tax is a tax assessed against the gross value of the estate, and it takes into consideration the value of real estate, businesses, stocks and bonds, savings and checking accounts, motor vehicles, boats - all assets owned by a New Jersey resident at time of death. The federal government also imposes an estate tax that is distinct from New Jersey's estate tax.  However, the threshold for the federal estate tax is much higher than New Jersey's threshold. The 2016 exemption for the federal estate tax is $5.45 million.


New Jersey has two, distinct death taxes-a state estate tax and an inheritance tax. The inheritance tax is imposed on estates worth more than $25,000, but affects only certain heirs. Close relatives, such as the surviving spouse, parents, children and grandchildren, are entirely exempt from the inheritance tax. Thus, close relatives do not pay any state inheritance tax, regardless of the size of the inheritance. Other relatives (such as siblings and their spouses or nieces and nephews) are taxed on inheritances over $25,000. The tax rate starts at 11% and rises to 16%, depending upon the amount inherited. Charities are taxed at a rate of 15% for the first $700,000 and 16% for amounts over that. The New Jersey inheritance tax remains, and has not been eliminated under the recent agreement.


The phase out of the NJ estate tax is part of a larger bill to replenish the state's Transportation Trust Fund. The bill will increase the tax on gasoline to 23 cents per gallon while lowering the sales tax from 7% to 6.875% in 2017 and to 6.625% in 2018. Other items in the bill provide assistance to retirees, veterans and the working poor.

The post New Jersey's State Estate Tax To Be Eliminated appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Summary Judgment Reversed: Claim That Lifetime Transfers Were Made To Avoid Decedent's Obligations To Daughter Under Divorce Agreement Can Proceed

When he died in 2012, the decedent, retired physician Henry D. Rubenstein, left his insolvent estate to his second wife and her nephew. Although he and his second wife had a son, his will explicitly left no bequest to that son. The second wife claimed that the decedent's extensive health problems had depleted the estate to the point of insolvency; the decedent's first wife and family disputed this claim.


When the decedent and his first wife had divorced in the 1970s, they had entered into a property settlement agreement (“PSA”) obligating the decedent to leave bequests to their two children in an amount equal to any bequest he left for any of his subsequent children, or, if he had no subsequent children, an amount equal to one-eighth of his gross estate. The PSA also obligated him to maintain $100,000 in life insurance for his first wife.


At his death, neither his first wife nor their children received anything from the estate. Because he had disinherited the child from his second marriage, his children from the first marriage received nothing pursuant to the PSA; moreover, the life insurance policy he was to have maintained for his first wife did not exist at the time of his death.


The decedent's first wife and their children sued the estate and the decedent's second wife and son. They claimed breach of the PSA, intentional interference with contract, and violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). They alleged that the decedent had disinherited the child of his second marriage in order to avoid a bequest to them; and that he intentionally depleted his estate through lifetime transfers to his second wife and their son. The children of the first marriage also alleged that, when the decedent's father had died over 20 years before, he had left $15,000 to each of them, but the decedent withheld that information, and the bequests, from them.


After discovery ended, the defendants moved for summary judgment; the plaintiffs cross-moved to extend discovery.


The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, with the exception of the claim regarding the $100,000 life insurance. In an oral decision, the trial court ruled that there was no “paper trial or any solid evidence” of lifetime transfers and that it “may be that there were, but there's no evidence presented to the Court for any.” The trial court also refused to extend discovery.


One of the daughters from the first marriage appealed. Despite the defendants' claim that she was barred from doing so based on procedural errors, the appeals court found that, because the plaintiff was not represented by counsel and the procedural history was “nuanced,” her appeal would be heard in the interests of justice.


Turning to the merits, the appellate court concluded that it was not clear from the record and the trial court's “abbreviated oral ruling” that there were no genuine issues of material fact. Although the motion judge had stated that he did not see “any kind of paper trail or solid evidence” of lifetime transfers, he also acknowledged that “maybe” such transfers had occurred. Plaintiff's appellate appendices included many documents that allegedly reflected lifetime transfers and the decedent's intent to evade the PSA. Plaintiff also attached a letter from the decedent to his estate planning attorney that stated that disinheriting the son of his second marriage “will eliminate any problems with reference to my divorce settlement.” Plaintiff asserted that this evidence created an issue of material fact as to whether lifetime transfers were done to deprive her of her rights under the PSA. The appellate court noted that the trial judge had not commented on these documents, or on deposition testimony of the decedent's estate planning attorney, in his oral ruling on the motion. Because the appeals court could not determine, from the oral opinion, whether the judge had considered this evidence, it reversed summary judgment and remanded these issues to the trial court.


The appellate court also rejected the defendants' claim that the alleged improper transfers should be rejected because the UFTA only applies to commercial transactions. The court ruled that, although commercial transactions were the “primary focus” of the UFTA, the Act is not limited to commercial transactions.


With respect to the plaintiff's claim regarding the $15,000 alleged bequest from her paternal grandfather, the appellate court found that the trial court failed to address the claim, and the record and briefs were inadequate to resolve the issue; consequently, that claim was also remanded.


Finally, because the trial court did not address the standard for extending the time to take discovery, plaintiff's application to extend the discovery period was also remanded.


A copy of Rubenstein v. Estate of Rubenstein can be found here –  Rubenstein v. Estate of Rubenstein

The post Summary Judgment Reversed: Claim That Lifetime Transfers Were Made To Avoid Decedent's Obligations To Daughter Under Divorce Agreement Can Proceed appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Father's Transfer To Son's Business Was An Investment, Not A Gift; Therefore, The Father's Estate Has An Ownership Interest In The Business

The decedent, Byung-Tae Oh, was a citizen and resident of the Republic of Korea. His youngest son, Hyung Kee Oh, owned B & H Consulting, a New Jersey limited liability company. Before his death, the decedent had transferred $900,000 into B & H's bank account.


Following the decedent's death, his oldest son, Won Ki Oh (the plaintiff), a resident of Korea, filed a complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court, Probate Part, seeking to be appointed administrator of the estate for purposes of marshalling the decedent's New Jersey assets. The plaintiff alleged that the $900,000 transfer to B & H was an investment and that, as a result, the decedent was part owner of the business.


The decedent's younger son (the defendant) moved to dismiss the New Jersey action, claiming that the $900,000 was “start-up money” for the business, but was not an investment, because the decedent had not treated that payment as entitling him to a legal ownership of the business. Therefore, according to the defendant, the transfer was a gift, and the decedent's estate did not have an ownership interest in the business.


The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After the chancery judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.


The defendant's first argument on appeal was that the New Jersey courts lacked jurisdiction over the case. The appeals court noted that ancillary jurisdiction would only exist if the New Jersey property was owned by an intestate nonresident, but whether the decedent owned the property was the primary dispute between the parties. The appellate court found that this was a “classic chicken-and-egg problem”: to determine whether there was ancillary jurisdiction, the chancery judge had been required to resolve the merits of the dispute–whether the $900,000 transfer gave the decedent an ownership interest in the property. The court concluded that, by determining that the transfer was an investment and not a gift, the chancery court implicitly, and correctly, concluded that it possessed jurisdiction.


The defendant's next argument was that the court had erred in applying New Jersey law, rather than the law of Korea. However, because he had failed to raise the issue before the chancery court, and because he had made no showing that Korean law would compel a different result, that argument was rejected.


Next, the defendant argued that, because the transfer was from the decedent to his son, the chancery court should have applied a presumption that the transfer was a gift. However, the Appellate Division recognized that the burden of proving an inter vivos gift rests on the alleged recipient, and the recipient must generally show by “clear, cogent and persuasive” evidence that the donor intended to make the gift. Moreover, when the claim of a gift is first asserted following the death of the alleged donor, “clear and convincing” proof is required. The appellate court acknowledged that, where a transfer is made from a parent to a child, the initial presumption is that the transfer is a gift. However, in this case, the transfer was made to the business, not to the defendant. Therefore, no such presumption attached.


The appeals court found that the defendant failed to present evidence sufficient to prove an intent to make a gift: although he made self-serving claims regarding discussions with his father, the plaintiff provided proof that the father had reported the $900,000 transfer as an overseas investment to the Export-Import Bank of Korea. The appellate court concluded that the proof presented was so one-sided that summary judgment against the defendant was appropriate.


Finally, the defendant claimed that the authority granted to the plaintiff/administrator over the New Jersey business was excessive. The defendant failed to raise this issue until he moved for a stay pending the appeal and, although the chancery judge had not barred the defendant from making a motion to modify the order, the defendant failed to do so. Thus, the appellate court determined that the chancery court had not been given the opportunity to reconsider the scope of authority, so the appeals court found the grounds for appeal to be premature.


A copy of In re Estate of Oh can be found here – Estate of Byung-Tae Oh


For additional information concerning estate planning and administration, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/estate-planning-administration/

The post Father's Transfer To Son's Business Was An Investment, Not A Gift; Therefore, The Father's Estate Has An Ownership Interest In The Business appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Wife's Death, After Executing Property Settlement Agreement But Before Final Divorce, Constitutes Waiver of Husband's Right To Inherit

A few months prior to her death, Basabadatta Pattanayak and her husband Sandeep Srinath executed a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Agreement included a section entitled “Equitable Distribution,” in which they divided their property and relinquished spousal support, and agreed that the husband would pay health insurance until the dissolution of the marriage. When the Agreement was signed, the parties had been living separate and apart for two years, but at the time of the wife's death, there had been no divorce hearing or judgment of divorce.


The wife died intestate on September 1, 2014. The Hudson County Surrogate granted letters of administration of her estate to the husband; the decedent's parents then filed an Order to Show Cause seeking his removal and seeking an order directing him to file an accounting. Following oral argument, the chancery judge ruled in favor of the decedents' parents: she removed the husband as administrator of the estate, ordered him to file an accounting, and ordered that he was not entitled to inherit under the estate as a “surviving spouse.”


The New Jersey statutes provide as follows:



N.J.S.A. 3B:8-10. Waiving right to an elective share


The rights… of the surviving spouse… may be waived, wholly or partially, before or after marriage… by a written contract, agreement or waiver, signed by the party waiving after fair disclosure. Unless it provides to the contrary, a waiver of “all rights” (or equivalent language) in the property or estate of a present or prospective spouse… or a complete property settlement entered into after or in anticipation of separation, [or] divorce … is a waiver of all rights to an elective share… and a renunciation …  of all benefits which would otherwise pass to him from the other by intestate succession….



The judge found that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:8-10, the Agreement was a complete property settlement in anticipation of divorce, thus precluding the husband from inheriting.


On appeal, the husband argued that the Agreement could not constitute a waiver of his right to inherit because there had been no hearing, so a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether his waiver was knowing and voluntary.  The Appellate Division disagreed. The appellate court concluded that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:8-10, the parties did not have to make an explicit waiver of intestacy rights under the Agreement because the Agreement demonstrated the parties' intent to resolve all issues arising out of their marital relationship.


The husband also argued on appeal that the parties had never intended to separate and divorce, and that the term “equitable distribution” had never been explained to them. Again, his argument was rejected, with the record demonstrating that the parties had lived separate and apart for two years before they entered into the Agreement; moreover, the language of the Agreement established that they had entered into it following separation and in anticipation of divorce. Finally, the Agreement established that they had intended to make a final division of their property, and did not contemplate returning property to each other following either's death.


The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court ruling in favor of the parents, finding no genuine issue of fact that would require a hearing.


A copy of In re Estate of Pattanayak  can be found here.


For additional information concerning New Jersey divorce law, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/family-law-services/#sdpnj


For additional information concerning probate litigation and will contests, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/will-contests-probate-litigation-elder-abuse-actions/#iplwc

 

The post Wife's Death, After Executing Property Settlement Agreement But Before Final Divorce, Constitutes Waiver of Husband's Right To Inherit appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Does a Section 529 Educational Savings Plan Account Impact a Minor Receiving SSI Benefits?

Question: Does a Section 529 educational savings plan account impact the eligibility of a minor receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits?  Are there any regulations governing such plans?


Answer: Qualified Tuition Programs (QTPs), also referred to as Section 529 educational savings plans, allow individuals to contribute to an account established to pay a designated beneficiary's education expenses beyond high school at an eligible educational institution. Funds in a Section 529 plan are considered to be countable resources to the individual who owns the account (e.g. a parent or grandparent). Normally, the owner is the person who established the account. In most instances, the individual who establishes a Section 529 plan account retains the ability to withdraw any or all of the funds in the account for his or her own benefit. The designated beneficiary (i.e. the student or future student) is not the owner of the account and does not have any rights to the funds in the account. Therefore, funds in a Section 529 plan account do not impact the eligibility of a minor receiving SSI benefits since the minor is not the owner of the funds in the account.


Regulations governing the ways in which Section 529 Plans impact SSI eligibility are set forth in Section SI 01140.150 of Social Security's Program Operations Manual System (POMS) as follows:


A. What is a Qualified Tuition Program?


Qualified Tuition Programs (QTPs), also referred to as Section 529 Plans, allow individuals to prepay or contribute to an account established for paying a designated beneficiary's education expenses beyond high school at an eligible educational institution. QTPs can be established and maintained by states, agencies, instrumentalities of states, and eligible educational institutions. Individuals may contribute to a QTP regardless of the amount of their income.


B. Types of QTPs


There are two types of QTPs (529 Plans): savings plans and pre-paid plans.



  1. Savings plans



  • They are accounts that provide investment options such as mutual funds or money market funds (similar to a retirement account (e.g. 401K)).

  • They are not guaranteed by the State and the value is subject to fluctuations in financial markets (e.g. the stock market).

  • They can be established for a beneficiary of any age.



  1. Prepaid plans



  • They allow individuals to purchase units or credits at participating colleges and universities for tuition.

  • They allow individuals to lock-in future tuition rates at current prices.

  • States may guarantee investments in plans that they sponsor.

  • Most plans must be established for a beneficiary by a certain age or grade.


C. Definitions



  1. Account Owner


An account owner, also referred to as a donor, is the individual who has ownership of the account and directs use of the funds. Most plans allow the account owner to reclaim the funds deposited into a QTP at any time.



  1. Designated beneficiary


A designated beneficiary is the individual (i.e. a student or future student) who is to receive the benefit of the funds in the account. The designated beneficiary can be changed to a member of the beneficiary's family.



  1. Members of the beneficiary's family


The beneficiary's family includes the beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the beneficiary:



  1. son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, adopted child, or a descendant of any of them;

  2. brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister;

  3. father, mother, or ancestor of either;

  4. stepfather or stepmother;

  5. son or daughter of a brother or sister;

  6. brother or sister of father or mother;

  7. son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law;

  8. the spouse of any individual listed above; or

  9. first cousin.



  1. Eligible educational institution


An eligible educational institution is any college, university, vocational school, or post-secondary educational institution eligible to participate in a student aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It includes virtually all accredited public, non-profit, and proprietary (i.e. privately owned profit making) post-secondary institutions. It also includes certain educational institutions located outside the U.S.



  1. Withdrawals or distributions


Withdrawals or distributions are the issuance of funds from the account. Distributions are payable to an eligible educational institution, the QTP account owner, the designated beneficiary or the estate of the beneficiary, as directed by the account owner. The account owner determines when distributions are made from the account and for what purpose.



  1. Gift


Distributions from a QTP meet the definition of a gift provided:



  • They are not repayment for goods or services provided by the designated beneficiary;

  • They are not given because of a legal obligation on the donor's part; and

  • They are given irrevocably (i.e. the donor relinquishes all control). For additional information on gifts, see SI 00830.520.



  1. Rollover contribution


A rollover contribution is any amount “rolled over” or transferred to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or a member of the beneficiary's family.



  1. Educational expenses


Educational expenses are tuition, fees, and other necessary educational expenses at any educational institution. Examples of educational expenses include:



  1. tuition and fees;

  2. books;

  3. laboratory fees;

  4. student activity fees;

  5. transportation;

  6. stationary supplies;

  7. technology fees; and

  8. impairment-related expenses necessary to attend school or perform schoolwork (e.g. special prosthetic devices necessary to operate school machines or equipment).


NOTE: Educational expenses do not include the cost of food and shelter.


D. QTP as a countable resource


Funds in a Qualified Tuition Program (QTP), also referred to as a Section 529 Plan, are a countable resource to the individual who owns the account (e.g. a parent or grandparent). Normally, the owner is the person who established the account. In most instances, the individual who establishes a QTP retains the ability to withdraw any or all of the funds in the account for his or her own benefit.


NOTE: In most cases, the designated beneficiary (i.e. the student or future student) is not the owner of the account and does not have any rights to the funds in the account.


EXAMPLE: A disabled child is the designated beneficiary of a QTP that was established by the child's father who lives in the household. The field office (FO) determines that the father is the owner of the QTP and it is a countable resource to him. In determining eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of the child, the FO deems the child's resources to include the resources of the father, including the QTP, to the extent that the father's resources exceed the applicable resource limit.


See Details




  1. Value of a QTP


The value of the QTP is the current market value minus any applicable penalties, but not minus taxes. In addition, any maintenance fees associated with the account, whether scheduled or collected, do not reduce its value.



  1. Dividends and interest earned on a QTP


Dividends and interest are returns on capital investments such as stocks, bonds, or savings accounts. Exclude dividends and interest earned on QTPs from income.



  1. Rule for withdrawals or distributions from a QTP


Withdrawals or distributions to the account owner are not income but a conversion of a resource (i.e. the resource in a different form). The distribution is a countable resource to the account owner.


Assume that any distribution the designated beneficiary receives from a QTP is a gift, unless there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. there is an allegation that the distribution must be repaid). Distributions, which meet the definition of a gift and are used for educational expenses of the designated beneficiary, are excluded as income in the month of receipt.


If an excluded distribution is retained into the month following the month of receipt, it is an excluded resource of the designated beneficiary for 9 months beginning with the month after the month of receipt. For information on educational gifts, see SI 00830.455 and SI 01130.455.


If the designated beneficiary spends any portion of a QTP distribution for a purpose other than his or her educational expenses or no longer intends to use the funds for his or her educational expenses, the funds are income at the earlier of two points:



  • in the month the funds are spent; or

  • in the month the individual no longer intends to use the funds for educational expenses.


If a countable distribution is retained into the month following the month of receipt, it is a countable resource.



  1. Examples of QTP distributions


EXAMPLE 1: Distributions excluded as income and resources


A disabled adult, age 19, is the designated beneficiary of a QTP. On January 10, the disabled adult receives $3,000 from the QTP. The disabled adult spends $2,800 for tuition and fees in January. As of February 1, $200 of the distribution remains. The disabled adult tells the field office (FO) that he will use the rest of the money for future educational expenses.


The FO determines:



  • The disabled adult is not the owner of the QTP; therefore, it is not a resource to the individual.

  • The distribution meets the definition of a gift for educational purposes and is excluded from income in the month of January.

  • The remaining amount of $200 is excluded from resources for the months of February through October. As of November 1, any portion that remains is a countable resource of the disabled adult.


EXAMPLE 2: Distributions counted as income and resources


A disabled adult, age 21, is the designated beneficiary of a QTP. On August 5, the disabled adult receives $1,500 from the QTP. During the month of August, the individual spends $1,350 on books. The individual spends $75 on groceries in August and saves $75. The disabled adult tells the FO that she intends to add the rest of the money to her “emergency fund” that she has set aside for non-educational expenses.


The FO determines:



  • The disabled adult is not the owner of the QTP; therefore, it is not a resource to the individual.

  • That $1,350 of the distribution meets the definition of a gift for educational purposes and is excluded from income in the month of August.

  • That $150 of the distribution is countable income to the individual for the month of August because the disabled adult spent $75 on non-educational expenses and intends to use $75 for non-educational expenses. As of September 1, any portion of the $75 that remains is a countable resource of the disabled adult.



  1. Rollover or transfer of QTP funds


Funds in a QTP may be transferred or “rolled over” to a member of the beneficiary's family. A transfer or “roll over” of QTP funds from a beneficiary to a family member does not necessarily indicate a transfer of account ownership. When there is a valid transfer, the original account owner no longer owns the property.


See Details



EXAMPLE 1


A disabled child lives in the household with an ineligible parent and ineligible child. On April 10, the ineligible parent establishes a QTP that is designated for the disabled child. The FO determines that the ineligible parent is the owner of the QTP and it is a countable resource to the parent as of May 1. In determining eligibility for SSI of the disabled child, the FO deems the child's resources to include the resources of the ineligible parent, including the QTP, to the extent that the parent's resources exceed the applicable resource limit.


On January 3 of the following year, the ineligible parent “rolls over” the funds to the ineligible child because the funds are no longer foreseen as necessary to pay the college education expenses of the disabled child. The FO determines that, although the parent “rolled over” the funds to a member of the beneficiary's family, the parent retains ownership of the funds (i.e., a valid transfer of ownership did not occur). The funds remain a countable resource to the ineligible parent.


EXAMPLE 2


An eligible individual lives in the household with an ineligible spouse and ineligible child. On January 6, the ineligible spouse establishes a QTP that is designated for the ineligible child. The FO determines that the ineligible spouse is the owner of the QTP and it is a countable resource as of February 1. In determining eligibility for SSI of the eligible individual, the FO determines the total countable resources are the combination of the resources of the eligible individual and the ineligible spouse after all applicable exclusions are applied.


On June 6, the ineligible spouse transfers ownership of the funds to the child's grandfather. The FO determines that a valid transfer occurred. As of July 1, the QTP is not a countable resource to the ineligible spouse; however, the FO must determine whether the ineligible spouse received fair market value (FMV) for the QTP. If not, a period of SSI ineligibility may exist for the eligible individual.


POMS Section SI 01140.150 can be accessed here – Section SI 01140.150


For additional information concerning NJ elder law and special needs planning visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/legal-services/

The post Does a Section 529 Educational Savings Plan Account Impact a Minor Receiving SSI Benefits? appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Friday, September 9, 2016

VA to Provide Presumptive Service-Connection for Diseases Associated with Exposure to Contaminants in the Water Supply at Camp Lejeune

VA News Release, Washington, D.C. – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has published proposed regulations to establish presumptions for the service connection of eight diseases affecting military members exposed to contaminants in the water supply at Camp Lejeune, N.C.


The presumptive illnesses apply to active duty, reserve and National Guard members who served for no less than 30 days at Camp Lejeune between August 1, 1953 and December 31, 1987, and are diagnosed with the following conditions:



  • adult leukemia

  • aplastic anemia and other myelodysplastic syndromes

  • bladder cancer

  • kidney cancer

  • liver cancer

  • multiple myeloma

  • non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

  • Parkinson's disease


“We have a responsibility to take care of those who have served our Nation and have been exposed to harm as a result of that service,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert A. McDonald. “Establishing a presumption for service at Camp Lejeune will make it easier for those Veterans to receive the care and benefits they deserve.”


Environmental health experts on VA's Technical Workgroup conducted comprehensive reviews of scientific evidence, which included analysis and research done by the Department of Health and Human Service's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Environmental Protection Agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and the National Academies of Science.


Military members with records of service showing no less than 30 days of service, either concurrent or cumulative, at Camp Lejeune during the contamination period can already be granted Veteran status for medical benefits, following passage of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.


In the early 1980s, volatile organic compounds, trichloroethylene (TCE), a metal degreaser, and perchloroethylene, a dry cleaning agent (PCE), as well as benzene, and vinyl chloride were discovered in two on-base water supply systems at Camp Lejeune. These systems served the housing, administrative, and recreational facilities, as well as the base hospital. The contaminated wells supplying the water systems were shut down in February 1985.


VA acknowledges that current science establishes a link between exposure to certain chemicals found in the water supply at Camp Lejeune and later development of one of the proposed presumptive conditions. However, VA experts agree that there is no scientific underpinning to support a specific minimum exposure level for any of the conditions. Therefore, VA welcomes comments on the 30-day minimum exposure requirement and will consider other practical alternatives when drafting the final rule. VA also notes that the proposed 30-day requirement serves to establish eligibility for service connection on a presumptive basis; nothing in this proposed regulation prohibits consideration of service connection on a non-presumptive basis. The 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule is open until Oct.10, 2016.


The proposed regulations to establish presumptions for the service connection of eight diseases affecting military members exposed to contaminants in the water supply at Camp Lejeune, N.C. are annexed here – Proposed Regulations


For additional information concerning VA compensation and pension benefits, visit:  http://vanarellilaw.com/va-benefits/ 

The post VA to Provide Presumptive Service-Connection for Diseases Associated with Exposure to Contaminants in the Water Supply at Camp Lejeune appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Medicaid Applicants Must Receive Full and Fair Notice of the Reasons for a Decision to Deny Benefits

In this case, the Court considered whether a Medicaid applicant received full and fair notice of the reasons for the agency's decision to deny benefits prior to holding a hearing on the applicant's appeal. E.W. v. Cape May County Board of Social Service, OAL Docket. No. HMA 14667-15 (OAL December 24, 2015)


In 2012, E.W., a Medicaid applicant, purchased a home from J.D., her son and power of attorney, for approximately $380,000.00. Thereafter, E.W. and J.D. resided in the home for over two years.  During that time, J.D. provided E.W. with long-term care services, which averted the need for petitioner to enter a nursing facility.


In 2014, E.W. deeded the home back to her son for less than fair market value, asserting that the transfer of the home to her son was exempt from any Medicaid penalty based upon the “caregiver child” exemption found at N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(d)(4) which provides as follows:



A son or daughter of the [Medicaid applicant] who was residing in the [Medicaid applicant's] home for a period of at least two years immediately before the date the [Medicaid applicant] becomes an institutionalized individual and who has provided care to such [Medicaid applicant] which permitted the [Medicaid applicant] to reside at home rather than in an institution or facility. 


The care provided by the [Medicaid applicant's] son or daughter … shall have exceeded normal personal support activities (for example, routine transportation and shopping). The [Medicaid applicant's] physical or mental condition shall have been such as to require special attention and care. The care provided by the son or daughter shall have been essential to the health and safety of the [Medicaid applicant] and shall have consisted of activities such as, but not limited to, supervision of medication, monitoring of nutritional status, and insuring the safety of the individual.



Several months later, E.W. filed for Medicaid benefits. The Medicaid agency denied eligibility, and imposed a penalty. The denial of benefits notice provided, in pertinent part, as follows:



This notice is to advise you of the following decision concerning Elizabeth Williams' eligibility for the Medicaid program.


 Eligible effective – July 2, 2018


This action was taken because: Applicant, otherwise, has been found to meet the Nursing Home Medicaid Guidelines for eligibility for March 1, 2015, but a penalty has been applied for 1,219 days due to a transfer of resources … .



E.W. requested specific details as to the penalty calculation that were lacking in the original denial notice, and the caseworker provided a breakdown of the penalty calculation in a subsequent notice sent via email. However, neither notice made any mention of the transfer of petitioner's home to her son. In addition, neither notice rejected E.W.'s claim for an exemption under the “caregiver child” exemption in the Medicaid law.  E.W. appealed the denial of benefits.


A hearing was scheduled. During a pretrial conference, a Medicaid agency representative asserted that the agency intended to raise all issues necessary to justify the penalty, including the transfer of petitioner's home to her son and a rejection of the caregiver exemption. Petitioner was surprised that Medicaid was challenging these issues given the vagueness of the agency notices. In response to the notice confusion, the parties were asked to brief the requirements of adequate notice as it applied to the present case.


After briefs were submitted, the Court held that, under the law, a Medicaid notice must be “fair, timely, and informative. It must include explicit reasons for the [Medicaid agency's] decision.” Under 42 CFR §435.913, the Medicaid agency must send each applicant a written notice of the agency's decision on his application, and, if eligibility is denied, the reasons for the action, the specific regulation supporting the action, and an explanation of his right to request a hearing.


The Court held that the Medicaid's notice did not meet the legal standards set forth above. The notice did not mention E.W.'s transfer of her home to her son. In addition, the notice offered no analysis of the “caregiver child” exemption. Moreover, the Medicaid agency did not find that J.D. failed to meet the criteria as a “caregiver child” during the two-year period he lived with his mother.


As a result of the notice deficiencies, the Court adjourned the hearing, ruling that, before the hearing is rescheduled, the Medicaid agency must 1) supply E.W. with a revised notice explaining in detail which transactions it contends resulted in a transfer for less than valuable consideration or uncompensated value, and 2) explain why E.W. was not eligible for the “caregiver child” exemption. The notice must contain a factual basis and detailed explanation why E.W.'s submissions were rejected including medical reports or statements offered in support of the “caregiver child” exemption.


The case is annexed here – E.W. v. Cape May County Board of Social Service


For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/medicaid-applications-medicaid-appeals/

The post Medicaid Applicants Must Receive Full and Fair Notice of the Reasons for a Decision to Deny Benefits appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | 07090 | 908-232-7400 | NJ Estate Planning Lawyer | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

“Spousal Refusal” Strategy, Used to Avoid Paying Nursing Home, Held to Create Implied Contract to Repay Medicaid Benefits

A New York trial court entered judgment against a woman who refused to contribute to her spouse's nursing home expenses, finding that because she had adequate resources to do so, an implied contract was created between her and the State of New York entitling the state to repayment of Medicaid benefits it paid on the spouse's behalf. Banks v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Pt. 5, No. 452318/15, Aug. 8, 2016).


Evelyn Gonzalez' spouse was admitted to a nursing home and received $28,235.56 in Medicaid benefits from the Department of Social Services of the City of New York.  At the time of her spouse's Medicaid application, Ms. Gonzalez' assets exceeded the resource allowance permitted by Medicaid.  However, she signed a declaration refusing to make her income or resources available to pay for her spouse's care. This strategy is commonly known as “spousal refusal.”


The “spousal refusal” Medicaid strategy a product of federal law. Federal Medicaid law states that the community spouse can keep all of his or her assets by simply refusing to support the institutionalized spouse. If a spouse refuses to contribute his or her income or resources toward the cost of care of a Medicaid applicant, the Medicaid agency is required to determine the eligibility of the nursing home spouse based solely on the applicant's income and resources, as if the community spouse did not exist. After awarding Medicaid benefits to the institutionalized spouse, the Medicaid agency then has the option of beginning a legal proceeding to force the community spouse to support the institutionalized spouse. However, this is not always done. If the Medicaid agency chooses not to sue the community spouse for support, it can file a claim for reimbursement against the community spouse's estate following his or her death.


After a letter to Ms. Gonzalez demanding repayment of the cost of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of her spouse went unanswered, the agency filed suit.  Ms. Gonzalez neither responded to the summons and complaint nor to the agency's motion for default judgment.


The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, granted the motion and entered default judgment against Ms. Gonzalez for the cost of benefits provided to her spouse.  The court held that, since Ms. Gonzalez had the income and resources but refused to contribute to her spouse's care, state law created an implied contract between her and the State of New York allowing recovery of the Medicaid benefits provided by the state.


(Adapted from an article on the ElderLawAnswers website. Mr. Vanarelli is a founding member of ElderLawAnswers.)


For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, visit: http://vanarellilaw.com/medicaid-applications-medicaid-appeals/

The post “Spousal Refusal” Strategy, Used to Avoid Paying Nursing Home, Held to Create Implied Contract to Repay Medicaid Benefits appeared first on Elder Law Attorney NJ | The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli.