A Muncie Indiana advocate won from a lawfirm in Memphis Tennessee

November 19th, 2008

It then used those totals to decide who to lay off. For example it would not be illegal to consider criteria for a particular role in a movie that has a disparate impact on age if the part calls for someone of a particular age. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case and eventually reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the jurys finding that Knolls policy unlawfully discriminated because of age. As long as the adverse action is based on reasonable factors other than age. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the employer has the burden to establish the BFOQ affirmative defense. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially affirmed the jurys findings but after the United States Supreme Court asked it to reconsider the Second Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of Knolls. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense. Even if the employment action is otherwise prohibited by the ADEA. Specifically the jury found that although the plaintiffs did not prove that Knolls intentionally discriminated against them they did prove that Knolls method of deciding who to lay off disproportionately harmed older workers. It has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age. The BFOQ defense states that it is not unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment actions otherwise prohibited by the ADEA where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. In reaching its conclusion that the employer has the burden to prove the reasonable factors other than age defense the Supreme Court looked at another provision of the ADEA the bona fide occupational qualification defense. Thirty of the 33 salaried employees the company laid off were at least 35 years old. In Meacham Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory was planning to lay off a number of employees. At the trial a jury found Knolls had violated the ADEA because its layoff procedure had a disparate impact based on age. Twenty-eight of those 68 employees sued under the ADEA claiming Knolls illegally fired them because of their age. In other words the ADEA permits employers to discriminate based on age considering age is legitimately necessary under the circumstances. A lawyer from Roermond won from a lawyer in Littleton Colorado The company had its supervisors rate their subordinates based on their performance flexibility and critical skills. Knolls totaled those scores and gave the employees additional points based on their years of service. In that case Meacham versus Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee.

Golf Chipping Drill - Under and Over

March 30th, 2008

When you are having around of golf you always seem a few greens and when this happens it can turn an easy par into an easy bogey or eaven worse.

To get down in two from off the green you need to have a sharp chipping game, and to get that you need to practise.

Checkout this great drill which will have you getting it close from all different sorts of lies and positions around the green.

Under and Over

So before we start we need to get our hands on some props. All you need is two bottles or boxes about 20 inches high (Maybe even alittle higher) and a stick about 6 feet long which you can lay across the top of them so you form an arch or a small hockey goal.

Now you need to place your hockey goal (Two bottles and a
stick) right on the edge of the green.

Now the fun begins

Take five golfballs and set them down just 1 foot behind thehockey goal, yes just 1 foot. Now your aim here is to chip each of the five balls over the edge of the fringe and land them on the green.

However you must make sure that the ball goes underneath the stick and it must stay on the green Do this 3 times making sure that you get each ball underneath the stick and staying on the green. If you hit the chip over the stick, or the ball does not stay on the green, or it
knocks down your hockey goal then you must start from the
beginning

Once you have completed 3 sets of 5 chips from a foot, repeat the excercise from 2 feet, 4 feet and 8 feet.

If you hit the chip over the stick, or the ball does not stay on the green, or it knocks down your hockey goal at any point then you must start from the beginning. And when i say the beginning, I mean from the one foot chips. Yes, you must start from the one foot chips.

This is a great drill because it really focusses you on making a solid contact with the ball. You will also find that you will pinch the ball off of the turf and this in itself will impart check spin on the ball.

Well thats the under part of the drill.

Now for the over part of the drill.

This is similar but this time you are not going to alter the position from which you hit the balls but the position of your hockey goal.

Find yourself a long green (about 40 yards if possible) and position the hockey goal about 5 yards onto the green.

Now set your 5 balls down about two to three feet off of the green (give yourself a good lie) and make sure you are directly facing your hockey goal.

Now the aim here is similar to the under.

But this time you must first chip all 5 balls over thehockey goal

Once you have completed 3 sets of 5 chips with the hockey
goal five yards away, repeat the excercise with the hockey
goal 10 yards away, 15 yards away and finally 20 yards away.

If you hit the chip under the stick, or the ball does not stay on the green, or it knocks down your hockey goal at any point then you must start from the beginning. And when i say the beginning, I mean chipping over the hockey goal from 5 yards away. Yes, you must start from the beginning again.

This is a great drill because it really focuses you on commiting to get the ball up and carrying a certain distance. This drill is really good because the further your hockey goal is away from the edge of the green the more lofted club you have to use.

Now with this drill you will make plenty of mistakes and this one will really test your patience. But stick with it and it will reward your patience by helping you when you get out on the course for a proper round.

Good luck and enjoy your golf.

Richard

Richard Smith is the founder of the The Big Golf Lesson http://www.biggolflesson.com.

The website offers a FREE 14 part e mail course for golfers wishing to improve their golf game andlower their handicap

Don’t Always Believe What They Tell You at the Social Security Office

March 26th, 2008

I have a dear friend who used to work for the Department of Social Services - I used to work there too, once upon a time as a medicaid caseworker, afdc caseworker, and food stamp caseworker. Well, she just filed for title II benefits today. For those who aren’t aware, title II benefits are social security disability benefits A.K.A ssd ssdi, rsdi, title II, and dib, or disability insurance benefits (leave it to the federal government to make even nomenclature a fuzzy proposition).

My friend called me up after her phone interview and was a combination of all the following: indignant, irritated, and incredulous. Want to know why? Here’s my recreation of the
conversation we had this afternoon (I’m no script writer, but I think I can recall most of the salient points).

Me: So, you did the application?

MyFriend: Yes, and I can’t believe some of the things that woman said.

Me: What do you mean? Was she rude?

MyFriend: No, she was very nice.

Me: That’s good. Take it from me. That’s not always the case.

MyFriend: She was very nice and helpful. But if I hadn’t talked to you about filing for benefits, I would have actually believed all the stuff she said.

Me: Like what?

MyFriend: Oh, god, you should have heard her. Everything she said to me, she was acting like I was going to get it (approved for disability) for sure. And I would probably get an answer in a few weeks, and she even started talking about what would happen when I got approved, some five month thing—

Me: —The five month waiting period.

MyFriend: Yeah, she talked about that and she kept saying I wouldn’t have a problem at all. Which is not even close to what you and I discussed.

Me: Yep, I’ve heard this before. The problem is, these people at social security who take disability applications don’t WORK ON THEM. All they do is take the application and send it to
DDS where the decision is made. Most of these social security field office people don’t even have a clue how a case gets approved or denied.

MyFriend: I remember you telling me that before. But why she did say all this stuff, like I won’t have to worry and I’ll get it for sure.

Me: Because for one, they are clueless. Second, they want to make you feel good. I’m sure with all the disability apps they take, they got a lot of crying and anger, and the easiest way to
deal with that is to give out this spiell that has nothing to do with reality. I mean, hey, you MAY get approved on your initial application, but, statistically, the numbers say you probably
won’t. And how the heck is a claims rep at the social security office going to know if you will or won’t get approved? They don’t work on your case. They don’t order your medical records. They don’t read them. But the real problem with them giving out these rosy predictions is that people absolutely take them at their word. And I’ve talked to a lot of people who just blindly assumed that their claim was going to get approved, just like that.

MyFriend: I know it. And that’s how I would have felt if we hadn’t talked so much about me filing for benefits. I just would have believed that, with my condition, I should have nothing
to worry about.

Me: And maybe it will turn out to be the case that you really don’t have anything to worry about. You could be one of the fifteen percent (in some states) that gets approved on the
initial application. But, if I were applying, I would want to be told what my chances, statistically, really are. So I could at least prepare. Mentally and emotionally, maybe even financially.

MyFriend: Yeah, if we hadn’t talked, I would have just believed everything she said. In fact, I kept correcting her. Everytime she said “when you get approved”, I said to her “you mean ‘if’ I
get approved, right?”. I think finally I just said to her “How do you know I’ll get approved?”

Me: What did she say?

MyFriend: She said it sounded like I had a good case.

Me: I think you do have a good case. Your cane is prescribed and it sounds like your docs will fill out medical source statements for you. The thing is, though, the claims rep has no way to
know what will happen with your medical decision. And chances are, she doesn’t even know what happens in a medical evaluation. The claims reps at the social security office don’t really know squat about disability. They just take the application and pass it on to DDS where it gets worked on by an examiner.

MyFriend: Well, I’m just going to assume that I’ll get denied. And if I actually get approved, that’ll be a nice surprise.

Me: That’s my advice. Assume the worst. Then, if the worst doesn’t happen, it’ll feel like a bonus.

And that’s basically how the conversation went. And the moral of the story is: don’t believe everything that the social security office tells you. And here’s some extra advice: always check
behind them and never assume that they really did what they were supposed to do. I know for a fact that they are understaffed and have a TON of work in these field offices. But if you’re
filing a claim for benefits, those are not your concerns. Your only concern is what gets done ON YOUR CASE. And since social security disability and ssi disability are fundamentally red-tape bureaucratic creations, you’re simply better off not trusting them and following behind them every step of the way.

The author of this article is Timothy Moore, who, in addition to being a former food stamp caseworker, medicaid caseworker and AFDC caseworker, is a former disability claims examiner. He
publishes a helpful FAQ on the disability process at
http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/questions.html

Medicaid Overview

March 21st, 2008

Medicaid, also known as medical assistance is a joint federal-state program that provides health insurance coverage to low-income children, seniors and people with disabilities. In addition, it covers care in a nursing home for those who qualify. Medicaid is a state administered program and provides more comprehensive coverage than Medicare, particularly with regard to nursing home care. However, not all nursing homes participate in the Medicaid program. There are no limits on the maximum length of a Medicaid recipient’s stay at a facility.
The Federal government pays roughly one-half of the costs, while the State covers the remainder. In Illinois, the agency that administers Medicaid is the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA). In the absence of any other public program covering long-term nursing home care, Medicaid has become the default nursing home insurance of the middle class.

While Congress and the federal Health Care Financing Administration set out the main rules under which Medicaid operates, each state runs its own program. As a result, the rules are somewhat different in every state, although the framework is the same throughout the country. The following describes some of the basic rules regarding Medicaid in Illinois.

Resource (Asset) Rules

In order to be eligible for Medicaid benefits in Illinois a nursing home resident may have no more than $2,000 in “countable” assets. While a Medicaid applicant may be eligible even if these assets exceed the limits, the applicant will be required to “spend down” these assets. This means that the cost of care must be paid for by the Medicaid applicant to the extent that the assets exceed the $2,000 limit.

The spouse of a nursing home resident–called the ‘community spouse’– is limited to one half of the couple’s joint assets up to $84,120 (in 2000) in “countable” assets (see Medicaid, Protections for the Healthy Spouse). The $84,120 figure changes each year to reflect inflation. In addition, the community spouse may keep the first $17,400, even if that is more than half of the couple’s assets. These figures change annually and are found in the Department of Human Services policy manual. Basic Medicaid information is also available at http://www.state.il.us/dpa/mednews.htm.
All assets are counted against these limits unless the assets fall within the short list of “non countable” assets. These include:

(1) Personal possessions, such as clothing, furniture, and jewelry with an equity value of no more than $2000. However, wedding rings, engagement rings and items required because of an individual’s medical or physical condition are exempt regardless of value.

(2) One motor vehicle if it meets any one of the following criteria: A) If it is necessary for employment B) If it is necessary for transportation for medical treatment of a specific or regular medical problem C) If it is modified for operation by or transportation of a handicapped person or D) If it is necessary because of terrain, remoteness or similar factors to provide necessary transportation to perform essential daily activities.

A motor vehicle owned by a nursing home resident is also exempt if transferred to a spouse. In all other cases the exemption is limited to $4,500.

(3) The applicant’s principal residence, provided it is in the same state in which the individual is applying for coverage although some limitations, discussed below, exist.

(4) In Illinois, up to $1,500 of revocable burial expenses are exempt and up to $4,120 in irrevocable prepaid expenses are exempt. However, the amount of the revocable expense exemption is reduced by the amount of irrevocable expenses. In all cases, expenses for burial space or plots and other customary items such as a casket or headstone are completely exempt.

(5) Assets that are considered “inaccessible” for one reason or another. These assets often come in the form of specific types of trusts.

The Home

Nursing home residents do not have to sell their homes in order to qualify for Medicaid. In Illinois, the home will not be considered a countable asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes as long as the nursing home resident intends to return home. The home may also be kept if the Medicaid applicant’s spouse, sibling, minor or disabled child lives there. However, if the applicant leaves the home with no intention of returning, the property must be counted as an asset.

The Transfer Penalty

The second major rule of Medicaid eligibility is the penalty for transferring assets. Congress does not want you to move into a nursing home on Monday, give all your money to your children (or whomever) on Tuesday, and qualify for Medicaid on Wednesday. So it has imposed a penalty on people who transfer assets without receiving fair value in return.

This penalty is a period of time during which the person transferring the assets will be ineligible for Medicaid. The penalty period is determined by dividing the amount transferred by what Medicaid determines to be the average private pay cost of a nursing home in Illinois. The period of ineligibility starts on the first day of the month of the transfer.
Example: If a Medicaid applicant made gifts totaling $90,000 in a state where the average nursing home bill is $5,000 a month, he or she would be ineligible for Medicaid for 18 months ($90,000 $5,000 = 18).
Another way to look at the above example is that for every $5,000 transferred, an applicant would be ineligible for Medicaid nursing home benefits for one month.

In theory, there is no limit on the number of months a person can be ineligible.

Example: The period of ineligibility for the transfer of property worth $400,000 would be 80 months ($400,000 $5,000 = 80).
However, the IDPA may look only at transfers made during the 36 months preceding an application for Medicaid (or 60 months if the transfer was made to certain trusts). This is called the “look-back period.” Effectively, then, there is now a 36-month limit on periods of ineligibility resulting from transfers. This means that people who make large transfers must be careful not to apply for Medicaid before the 36-month look-back period passes.

Example: To use the above example of the $400,000 transfers, if the individual made the transfer on January 1, 1998, and waited until February 1, 2001, to apply for Medicaid — 37 months later — the transfer would not affect his or her Medicaid eligibility. However, if the individual applied for benefits in December 2000, only 35 months after transferring the property, he or she would have to wait the full 80 months before becoming eligible for benefits.

Exceptions to the Transfer Penalty

Transferring assets to certain recipients will not trigger a period of Medicaid ineligibility. These exempt recipients include:
(1) A spouse (or a transfer to anyone else as long as it is for the spouse’s benefit);
(2) A blind or disabled child;
(3) A trust for the benefit of a blind or disabled child;
(4) A trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances).
In addition, special exceptions apply to the transfer of a home. The Medicaid applicant may freely transfer his or her home to the following individuals without incurring a transfer penalty:
(1) The applicant’s spouse;
(2) A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled;
(3) Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances);
(4) A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home; or
(5) A “caretaker child,” who is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s institutionalization and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.

Congress has created a very important escape hatch from the transfer penalty: the penalty will be “cured” if the transferred asset is returned in its entirety, or it will be reduced if the transferred asset is partially returned.

Is Transferring Assets Against the Law?
You may have heard that transferring assets, or helping someone to transfer assets, to achieve Medicaid eligibility is a crime. Is this true? The short answer is that for a brief period it was, and it’s possible, although unlikely under current law, that it will be in the future.
As part of a 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care bill, Congress made it a crime to transfer assets for purposes of achieving Medicaid eligibility. Congress repealed the law as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget bill, but replaced it with a statute that made it a crime to advise or counsel someone for a fee regarding transferring assets for purposes of obtaining Medicaid. This meant that although transferring assets was again legal, explaining the law to clients could have been a criminal act.
In 1998, Attorney General Janet Reno determined that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment protection of free speech, and she told Congress that the Justice Department would not enforce the law. Around the same time, a U.S. District Court judge in New York said that the law could not be enforced for the same reason. Accordingly, the law remains on the books, but it will not be enforced. Since it is possible that these rulings may change, you should contact our office before filing a Medicaid application.

Treatment of Income
The basic Medicaid rule for nursing home residents is that they must pay all of their income, minus certain deductions, to the nursing home. The deductions include a $30-a-month personal needs allowance, a deduction for any uncovered medical costs (including medical insurance premiums), and, in the case of a married applicant, an allowance for the spouse who continues to live at home if he or she needs income support. A deduction may also be allowed for a dependent child living at home. A deduction is also allowed for community spouse maintenance needs. The allowance in 2000 was $2,103 and is adjusted annually. This allows the Medicaid recipient to exempt some of his/her income for the purpose of spouse maintenance.
Example: if Mr. X resides in a long term care facility such as a nursing home and has monthly income of $1,600 and his spouse has income of $800 a month (from pension or social security for example) then the difference between the spouse’s $800/mo. Income and the $2,103 allowance (in 2000) may be contributed by Mr. X to his spouse and he may deduct that amount, up to the total allowance, from his income for asset calculation purposes. Under the facts of the example, this would allow Mr. X a $503 community spouse deduction and $30 personal needs deduction. The amount of Mr. X’s income in excess of the deductions ($1,600-$503-$30= $1,067) must be “spent down” or paid to cover the medical expenses each month. A similar deduction exists for dependent family members including dependent adult children, dependent parents or dependent siblings.

For Medicaid applicants who are married, the income of the community spouse is not counted in determining the Medicaid applicant’s eligibility. Only income in the applicant’s name is counted in determining his or her eligibility. Thus, even if the community spouse is still working and earning $5,000 a month, she will not have to contribute to the cost of caring for her spouse in a nursing home if Medicaid covers him.

Protections for the Healthy Spouse

The Medicaid law provides special protections for the spouse of a nursing home resident to make sure she has the minimum support needed to continue to live in the community.
The so-called “spousal protections” work this way: if the Medicaid applicant is married, the countable assets of both the community spouse and the institutionalized spouse are totaled as of the date of “institutionalization,” the day on which the ill spouse enters either a hospital or a long-term care facility in which he or she then stays for at least 30 days.
In Illinois, the community spouse may keep one half of the couple’s total “countable” assets up to a maximum of $84,120 (in 2000). Called the “community spouse resource allowance,” this is the most that Illinois allows a community spouse to retain without a hearing or a court order.
Example: If a couple has $100,000 in countable assets on the date the applicant enters a nursing home, he or she will be eligible for Medicaid once the couple’s assets have been reduced to a combined figure of $52,000 — $2,000 for the applicant and $50,000 for the community spouse.

In all circumstances, the income of the community spouse will continue undisturbed; he or she will not have to use his or her income to support the nursing home spouse receiving Medicaid benefits. But what if most of the couple’s income is in the name of the institutionalized spouse, and the community spouse’s income is not enough to live on? In such cases, the community spouse is entitled to some or all of the monthly income of the institutionalized spouse as described above in “treatment of income.”..

In exceptional circumstances, community spouses may seek an increase in the income allowance either by appealing to the IDPA or by obtaining a court order of spousal support.

Estate Recovery and Liens
Under Medicaid law, following the death of the Medicaid recipient a state must attempt to recover from his or her estate whatever benefits it paid for the recipient’s care. However, no recovery can take place until the death of the recipient’s spouse, or as long as there is a child of the deceased who is under 21 or who is blind or disabled.

The IDPA is permitted to seek recovery of paid benefits in all of the benefit recipient’s probate property. Given the rules for Medicaid eligibility, the only probate property of substantial value that a Medicaid recipient is likely to own at death is his or her home.
In addition to the right to recover from the estate of the Medicaid beneficiary, IDPA must place a lien on real estate owned by a Medicaid beneficiary during her life unless certain dependent relatives are living in the property. If the property is sold while the Medicaid beneficiary is living, not only will she cease to be eligible for Medicaid due to the cash she would net from the sale, but also she would have to satisfy the lien by paying back the state for its coverage of her care to date. The exceptions to this rule are cases where a spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house is living there.
Whether or not a lien is placed on the house, the lien’s purpose should only be for recovery of Medicaid expenses. The IDPA may seek to enforce the lien at any time there is a transfer of the real property, in cases of fraud, or at the time of death of the owner.

Nicolosi & Associates - Attorneys at Law Since 1948. Skilled in the law. Experienced in business. http://www.nicolosilaw.com