Patti's Blog - Advocate for Elders, People with Disabilities and Their Families

Medicaid Decision by Supreme Court, upholding Ahlborn

Excerpt from: Shapiro Settlement Solutions (click for full article)

 

In WOS v. E.M.A., 568 U.S. ___ (March 20, 2013), the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that North Carolina’s irrebuttable statutory presumption that 1/3 of a tort recovery was the amount due on state’s Medicaid subrogation claim was invalid under federal Medicaid anti-lien statute and the Court’s 2006 Ahlborn decision.  In this case the true value of the damages was estimated to be $42 million and the victim was only able to recover $2.8 million on the malpractice claim for multiple birth injuries.  The State of North Carolina sought 1/3 of the recovery.  This decision fully adheres to the Court’s 2006 Ahlborn decision which authorized only 1/6 reimbursement of medical bills paid because the tort recovery was only 1/6 the true damages.  In Ahlborn the parties stipulated to the value of the claim and allocation related to medical bills. Here there was no stipulation or allocation.  Important language from the opinion is quoted in the link above.

Jon Stewart Blasts Gay Marriage Opposition In DOMA Supreme Court Hearing (VIDEO)

Excerpt from: Huffington Post (click for full article)

 

 

DCA Fact Sheet: FAQs About the Affordable Care Act

Excerpt from: Direct Care Alliance, Inc. (click for full article)

 

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform act often referred to as Obamacare, in 2010, but it will not be fully implemented until 2014. While opponents of the law have attacked it as unconstitutional and bad for America, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional, and millions of Americans are already benefiting from it. Nonetheless, considerable confusion remains about what it will accomplish. This fact sheet answers some frequently asked questions about the new law and explains how it benefits millions of Americans, including direct care workers.

ABA AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTS REPEAL OF DOMA

Today the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments and review the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act with the case, United States v. Windsor, et al.  The Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities sponsored the American Bar Association's amicus brief in the Windsor case.  The brief was drafted pro bono by a team of lawyers, led by Harry Sandick, at the firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.  Yesterday, the Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ABA Windsor brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the "serious obstacles" that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act imposes on lawyer's clients who are same-sex couples legally married under state law.  The brief describes Section 3’s impact on the federal rights and responsibilities of these clients in areas that include retirement and estate planning, health care, taxation, military benefits, ethical obligations and immigration. The brief advises that Section 3, which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, results in unprecedented and discriminatory burdens on legally married same-sex couples that are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

The brief also cites the ABA’s advocacy over the past 40 years to eliminate discrimination against gays and lesbians. To read the full brief, click here.

James Brown’s Legacy Protected by S.C. Supreme Court

Excerpt from: Lawyers.com (click for full article)

 

Despite challenges by the children and wife he left behind, as well as by the state of South Carolina, James Brown’s plans for the inheritance of his money will stay in place. In February the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that an irrevocable trust set up by the Godfather of Soul – which cut out any wives and left most of his estate to an educational trust fund – could not be set aside.

Personal trainer Bryant Johnson’s clients include two Supreme Court justices

Excerpt from: The Washington Post (click for full article)

 

Personal trainer Bryant Johnson watches his tiny client pump her body up and down on a green yoga mat, spotting her with his hands at her waist in case she falls. As “PBS NewsHour” blares in the background, Johnson counts down the first of two sets of 10 push-ups.

“Way to go, Justice,” cheers the man building the biceps of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

By day, Johnson is a records manager in the clerk’s office of the District’s federal court, curating obscure files and trying to avoid paper cuts. In the evening, he drives up the hill — Capitol Hill — to do squats with Ginsburg or take punches from her colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, in the Supreme Court’s ground-floor gym.

Supreme Court Declines Special Education Appeals

Excerpt from: Education Week (click for full article)

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two appeals involving how schools treat students in special education. One involves whether the use of a special desk with a restraining bar violates a student's rights, while the other addresses the "social promotion" of students with disabilities who are unable to pass state achievement tests.

The restraining-bar case stems from a federal appeals court decision that said the district's use of a U-shaped desk, with a wooden bar designed to keep a student from pushing back his or her chair, did not amount to an unconstitutional "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.

The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, also held last year that the exclusive use of such desks in special education classrooms did not violate the 14th Amendment equal-protection rights of students.

Stem Cell Research Gets a Reprieve

Excerpt from: New York Times (click for full article)

 

The Supreme Court has wisely ended a bizarre and destructive lawsuit to prevent the federal government from financing embryonic stem cell research. By refusing to hear the case, the court put a halt to more than three years of turmoil that drove some scientists away from such research because of uncertainty about its legality and questions about continued federal funding.

Scientists study stem cells to analyze cell development and to explore ways that stem cells might repair or replace damaged tissues associated with such devastating ailments as spinal cord injuries, diabetes and Parkinson’s. Most of the stem cells used in such research have been derived from days-old human embryos through a process that destroys the embryos and is strongly opposed by many religious and social conservatives.

Although federal law since 1996 has prohibited federal financing of research that destroys an embryo, the Obama administration, like the Clinton administration before it, concluded that if stem cells were derived (and embryos destroyed) with private or state money, federal money could support subsequent research. Rules issued by the Obama administration were challenged in court by two researchers who work on adult stem cells; they contended that no research could get taxpayer money if it depended on an embryo having been destroyed at some point.

Guest commentary: Michigan should opt into Medicaid expansion

Excerpt from: Detroit Free Press (click for full article)

 

All Michiganders want to live long, healthy and prosperous lives, and health care coverage contributes to making that a reality. However, an estimated 1.2 million residents in Michigan are uninsured -- and the rest of us are a pink slip away from losing our coverage.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted to address this need, mainly through expansion of the Medicaid program. At least 400,000 uninsured Michigan residents could receive health care by enrolling in Medicaid -- that is, if Gov. Rick Snyder opts into the program.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid expansion is optional, state by state. A number of states have said they will join, including Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts and California. Several Republican governors have opted out.

Guardianship case in McLean illustrates lack of regulation for those caring for the elderly

Excerpt from: The Washington Post (click for full article)

 

A dispute between the couple’s children led the courts to decide that the Drakuliches needed a third-party caretaker. A judge appointed a law firm, which is common in Virginia when the elderly and incapacitated have no one else.

Now the Drakuliches and the law firm are fighting over tens of thousands of dollars in billings in a conflict that likely will be decided by the state Supreme Court.

It has raised questions among elder-care advocates and legislators about how a small number of paid guardians — both lawyers and non-lawyer professionals — are treating the aging and how states oversee the process. The questions come just as a host of baby-boomer retirees are expected to make such arrangements more common. Between 2009 and 2025, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the elderly population will increase by 60 percent to 64 million.