Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli Blog

Two types of taxes can be assessed against property that passes to your heirs after you die. They are: estate taxes and inheritance taxes. Estate taxes are further divided into two types, depending upon the taxing authority imposing the tax. Federal estate taxes are imposed by the U.S. government, while state estate taxes are imposed by various state governments.

1. Estate Taxes.

A. Federal Estate Taxes.    The federal estate tax is a tax imposed by the federal government on property transferred to your heirs after your death. The fair market value of everything you own at the time of death is used to determine your “gross estate,” from which certain deductions are allowed, such as mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The resulting amount is called the “taxable estate.” After the taxable estate is determined, the value of all lifetime taxable gifts is added and the federal estate tax is then computed. However, there is an amount, called the federal estate tax exemption, which passes free of federal estate taxes. The amount of the federal estate tax exemption has varied over the years. The federal estate tax exemption was $5,000,000 for 2010 and 2011 and is $5,120,000 for 2012, but is scheduled to decrease to $1,000,000 on January 1, 2013.

B. State Estate Taxes.       Like the federal estate tax, state estate tax is also based on the value of the entire estate. However, state tax rates are much lower than federal tax rates. Notwithstanding the lower state estate tax rates, however, many smaller estates with assets valued at less than the federal estate tax exempt amount which do not owe any federal estate taxes do, in fact, owe state estate taxes. Whether an estate owes a state estate tax depends upon the residence of the deceased person, and the location and value of the property owned by the decedent. Today, the District of Columbia and a number of states impose a separate state estate tax:  Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio (repealed for deaths as of January 1, 2013), Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin (repealed for deaths in 2008 through 2012). Under current law,New Jersey estates valued at more than $675,000 are subject to the New Jersey estate tax. The attached State Estate Tax and Exemption Chart lists each state’s estate tax exemption amount.

2. Inheritance Taxes.

Although the federal government does not impose any inheritance tax, a number of states impose an inheritance tax on beneficiaries who inherit property. An inheritance tax may be imposed in addition to the federal estate tax and any state estate tax. Unlike the taxes on estates discussed above, the amount of the inheritance tax imposed is not based upon the total value of the estate. Rather, the amount of inheritance tax due depends on how closely related you were to the person who died and left you an inheritance. For that reason, you may owe inheritance taxes even if your inheritance is small. The surviving spouse is exempt from inheritance tax in all states. Some states, like New Jersey, also do not tax the deceased person’s children. People who are more distantly related to the decedent, or who aren’t related at all, are taxed at higher rates. The inheritance tax rate in New Jersey varies between 0% for Class “A” beneficiaries, such as a spouse, domestic partner, or civil union partner, parent or grandparent, child and the like, to 16% for Class “C” and “D” beneficiaries, such as a brother or sister, spouse or civil union partner of the deceased person’s child, and friends.

3. Death Taxes.

The term “death tax” is a newly-coined term which, some believe, is used by critics of the estate tax system as a tactic to aid in efforts to repeal estate taxes. The term refers to any tax imposed on property transferred as a result of someone’s death, such as either an estate tax or an inheritance tax.

The cost for care in an assisted living facility (ALF) varies widely throughout the United States. You may have expected some states listed below to be expensive, but there are others with high costs which may surprise you. Is your state on the top 10  list for the most expensive yearly cost?

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire is the 10th most expensive state in terms of ALF care costs in the country. The median cost for care is $46,870 per year.

9. Washington

The state of Washington also has very high costs of care. This state is the 9th highest in the country, with a median cost for care of $48,000 per year.

8. Rhode Island

The smallest state in the nation is one of the biggest in the cost-of-care department. Rhode Island has a median cost breaking the 50k mark, at $50,550 per year.

7. Washington, D.C.

Although not a state, the District of Columbia boasts one of the highest costs for care in the country. Our nation’s capital comes in at number 7 on the top 10 list, with a median cost for care of $52,200 per year.

6. Connecticut

Connecticut comes in at number 6 in the nation. The median cost for ALF care is $53,850 per year.

5. Maine

The state of Maine has the 5th highest ALF costs in the nation. The median cost for care in Maine is $55,500 per year.

4. Delaware

The second smallest state in the country earned the number 4 spot on the top 10 list. Delaware has a median cost for care of $55,506 per year.

3. New Jersey

New Jersey  comes in at number 3 on the top 10 list. The median cost for care at an ALF in New Jersey is $59,250 per year.

2. Massachusetts

Massachusetts  is known to be an expensive state to live in, and the costs of ALF care are also very high. As the highest priced state in the continental U.S., the median cost for care in Massachusetts is $59,400 per year.

1. Alaska

Alaska is number 1 on the top 10 list, the most expensive state in the country for care. Alaska’s median cost for care is over $6,000 more than the number 2 state, at $66,000 per year.

(Courtesy of CompleteLongTermCare.com)

A Pennsylvania appellate court held that son is liable for his mother’s $93,000 nursing home bill under the state’s filial responsibility law. Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas (Pa. Super.Ct., No. 536 EDA 2011, May 7, 2012).

John Pittas’ mother entered a nursing home for rehabilitation following a car crash in September 2007. Several months later, in March 2008, the mother left the nursing home and moved toGreece. A large portion of her nursing home bills went unpaid. Mr. Pittas’ mother filed an application for Medicaid which was pending at the time this decision was entered.

The nursing home sued Mr. Pittas for nearly $93,000 under the state’s filial support law, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4603, which requires a child to provide support for an indigent parent. In that regard, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4603 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(1) Except as set forth in paragraph (2), all of the following individuals have the responsibility to care for and maintain or financially assist an indigent person, regardless of whether the indigent person is a public charge:

(i) The spouse of the indigent person.

(ii) A child of the indigent person.

(iii) A parent of the indigent person.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in any of the following cases:

(i) If an individual does not have sufficient financial ability to support the indigent person.

(ii) A child shall not be liable for the support of a parent who abandoned the child and persisted in the abandonment for a period of ten years during the child’s minority.

The trial court entered a verdict in favor of the nursing home, and Mr. Pittas appealed. On appeal, Mr. Pittas argued that the trial court improperly put the burden of proving his inability to support his mother on him. He also argued that the trial court should have considered alternate forms of payment, such as Medicaid and his mother’s husband and her two other adult children.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, holding that Mr. Pittas is liable for his mother’s nursing home debt. The court agreed with Mr. Pittas that the nursing home had the burden of proving that Mr. Pittas’ ability to support his mother, but it ruled that the nursing home submitted enough evidence to meet that burden. The court also holds that the law does not require it to consider other sources of income or to stay its determination pending the resolution of the Medicaid claim. It also noted that if Mr. Pittas had wished to share his support burden with other family members, he should have joined them as defendants in the case.

The case is annexed here – Health Care & Retirement Corporation of America v. Pittas

(Courtesy of ElderLawAnswers.com)

Recently, I had a consultation with a parent of a child suffering from attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who shared some of the lessons she learned over the years in advocating to obtaining appropriate special education supports for her child in her local school system:

1.  To make her case that her elementary school student with ADHD needed to be classified, and given an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”), this parent withheld stimulant medication and private tutoring for six months, long enough for her child to “bottom out” in terms of classroom conduct, grades, and standardized test scores.  Armed with grades, test scores, and a referral by the overwhelmed classroom teacher, the parent was able to cause her district to evaluate her child for special-education classification at an earlier grade than was typical in her district.

2.  It appeared to this parent that her district intended to take several months to complete the evaluation process that leads to classification as a special education student.  Scheduling the testing took time, and then there looked to be a long wait for the results of the tests. She advised her district that she had retained an attorney, and an IEP meeting was scheduled for the following week.

3.  Once your child with ADHD is classified and given an IEP, hold on to that status all the way through high school.  Based on her child’s status as a classified student with an IEP, her child was able to keep in place the “pull-out” support the child needed (i.e., “pull-out” support refers to the special educational supports provided after the child is pulled out of class for individualized instruction rather than in-class support), to help him meet the organizational challenges of middle and high school.

4.  This parent fostered relationships with members of the School Board in her district, and with fellow parents of students with ADHD.  The word of mouth from her fellow parents enabled her to learn, for example, that pull-out support for ADHD students was being phased out for her district’s sixth-graders, but not for seventh-grade students.  Being able to point out this inconsistency, to staff in her district’s special services department and to friends on the Board of Education, helped her obtain pull-out support for her child, even though he was a sixth-grader, and not a seventh-grader.

5.  The parent recommended that parents fight to have the best possible IEP in place as of the spring of the preceding school year, and to reject “wait and see” proposals by the district that leave the child’s services up in the air as a new school year starts. For example, this parent’s district had proposed that her child start sixth grade without pull-out support, “just to see how it goes” with in-class support alone. The parent rejected the offer because 1) she knew her peer-conscious pre-adolescent would never self-identify in his middle-school regular-education classes as being in need of a support teacher’s assistance and so he would be effectively unsupported; 2) she wanted her child to have the pull out teacher’s support right from the start of middle school to help him navigate his overall program;  3) she knew that having to learn new teachers and a new schedule one month into the school year would set her child back and cause her child to feel shame.

The district represented that they would give her child a new schedule, including pull-out support, a month into the school year, if the child needed it. The parent rejected the district’s offer. Her rationale for rejecting this offer was that she knew her child would need pull out support to adjust to the increased organizational demands of middle school.

Aurelia DeFrank died on August 18, 2009, a resident ofMercer County, New Jersey. Although decedent’s husband predeceased her, her two (2) adult children, daughters Lorraine D. Rubaltelli and  Diane C. DiDonato, survived her.  Decedent executed a will dated March 21, 2002 which was admitted to probate.

Decedent’s probate estate consisted of real property, including a residence and vacant land, bank accounts, investment accounts, and other property. The total  value of the probate estate was approx. $1,400,000. In addition to the probate assets, decedent also had non-probate assets consisting of thirteen (13) accounts created during her life to which she contributed approx. $260,000. The thirteen (13) accounts were all jointly titled in the names of decedent and her daughter Diane; daughter Lorraine was omitted. If included in the total estate assets, the non-probate assets would constitute about 16% of the total estate value. The probate estate consists of assets held in the decedent’s name alone that do not have a beneficiary designated. When the owner dies, the probate estate passes in accordance with the decedent’s will, which must be probated. Non-probate assets include assets owned jointly or that have a named beneficiary, such as a life insurance policy, IRA or joint bank account. These assets will pass in accordance with the joint ownership or beneficiary designation without the need for probate; that is, they do not pass in accordance with the decedent’s will.

A dispute developed between the daughters about ownership of the non-probate assets. As a result, a lawsuit was initiated by Lorraine who filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to compel her sister Diane, the Executor of their mother’s estate, to provide an accounting. Diane filed an Answer and provided an informal accounting. Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery and attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the lawsuit through mediation. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a ruling that the thirteen (13) joint bank accounts in the names of decedent and defendant were non-probate assets which were not part of decedent’s probate estate and that, as a result, upon decedent’s death became defendant’s sole property. In response, plaintiff cross-moved for a ruling that the accounts belonged to the estate because defendant had not rebutted the presumption of undue influence.

The trial court ruled that the thirteen (13) joint accounts would pass to defendant, the surviving joint-owner, unless the plaintiff proved either 1) that at the time she created the accounts decedent did not intend that the funds on deposit  would pass to Diane at the time of decedent’s death ; or 2) that Diane enjoyed a confidential relationship with decedent at the time the accounts were created such that the joint accounts were the result of undue influence.

Although Lorraine argued that the decedent did not understand the consequences of establishing  joint accounts and included Diane on her accounts solely for the purpose of convenience, the court ruled that the only evidence produced by Lorraine in support of these assertions were her own self-serving statements.

With regard to the claim of under influence, the court ruled that a presumption of undue influence is created if plaintiff shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a confidential relationship existed between defendant and the decedent at the time the joint accounts were created. However, upon analysis, the court found that the facts could not support plaintiff’s claim that defendant shared a confidential relationship with decedent when the accounts at issue were created, and that the proofs on this issue are so one-sided that Diane must prevail as a matter of law. The court ruled as sollows:

In determining whether a confidential relationship exists, courts look for evidence of greater reliance, such as delegation of financial or business decision-making, particularly where the vesting of such authority coincides with deterioration in capacity on the part of the donor. … [W]here the donor-parent remains otherwise independent of the donee-child and retains control over the jointly-titled assets, then a confidential relationship is not established. [That is the case here.]

Accordingly, the court ruled that all the accounts titled jointly in the names of decedent and defendant passed outside of probate by survivorship to defendant

The case is attached here – Matter of the Estate of Aurella DeFrank

In this case, the chancery court held that post-mediation correspondence between the attorneys for the parties allegedly memorializing the terms of a verbal settlement reached in mediation constituted confidential mediation communications, not subject to disclosure. Partners Pharmacy Services v. Halbert, Docket No. C-72-09 (Chan. Div., Union County, April 16, 2012)

The parties in this case were involved in a lawsuit. Mediation was held before a retired judge. Defendants alleged that that a verbal settlement agreement was reached, but no formal written settlement agreement was prepared at the mediation. Rather, the parties left the mediator with an understanding that a written agreement would be prepared and executed by the parties after the mediation. Thereafter, emails were exchanged which, defendants contended, evidenced the essential terms of the agreement. Moreover, the mediator confirmed his understanding that the parties had reached a settlement.

Relying upon the post-mediation emails and the mediator’s understanding, defendants filed a motion to enforce the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. In opposition, plaintiff replied that the motion must be denied because, among other things, the emails relied upon by defendants are confidential mediation communications. Defendants responded that confidentiality did not extend to post-mediation communications memorializing the terms of the settlement. Rather, defendants claimed that, because the mediation was completed at the time the emails were sent and the attorneys were merely finalizing the details of the settlement for the purpose of drafting an agreement, the emails are outside the scope of confidentiality afforded to mediation communications. Plaintiff then asserted that the emails submitted by defendant indicated that the mediation had not concluded, and the parties were actually engaged in an exchange of offers and counteroffers.

The court found the dispute forced the court to resolve the conflict between “the public policy favoring settlements and the policy respecting the confidentiality of mediation communication.” In analyzing the case, the chancery court reasoned as follows:

In order to consider defendants’ claim that the case is settled not only would this court have to review the emails presented, additional documents would have to be reviewed. Further, it would be likely that a plenary hearing would be needed to determine if a settlement had been reached. Harrington v. Harrington, 281 N.J. Super 39 (App. Div. 1985) Such review would improperly intrude into the mediation process.

Concluding that the expectation of privacy in the mediation process must be protected, the court denied defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ alleged settlement agreement.

The case is annexed here – Partners Pharmacy Services v. Halbert

I believe the chancery court framed the issue correctly. If the policy favoring settlement trumps the policy protecting mediation privilege, then mediation in NJ as a dispute resolution mechanism will shrivel and die. Counsel, the parties, and the mediator MUST deal with these questions up front, in a written agreement to mediate, signed by all, which provides that no settlement, in part or in full, will be reached unless and until a complete and formal written agreement has been approved by the attorneys and executed by the parties. This is permitted under the Uniform Mediation Act, which allows mediation participants to create the rules to which they will be bound.

In Beim v. Sawyer (N.J. App. Div. A-2816-10T1, decided on February 29, 2012), defendant, in her 70s, filed for a divorce from plaintiff, in his 80s. After the complaint and answer were filed and discovery completed, the parties made repeated efforts to settle their dispute through multiple alternative dispute resolution events held over an extended period. They attended an “Early Settlement Panel,” two “Economic Mediation” sessions, a “Mandatory Economic Mediation” session, and an “Intensive Settlement Conference.” The mediation efforts resulted in a settlement. The settlement was reduced to a 4-page written agreement at the mediation, 2 pages of which were drafted by the mediator, 1 page was drafted by plaintiff’s attorney, and 1 page was photocopied from one of defendant’s prior submissions.  The agreement also contained handwritten paragraphs and numerous deletions. The written agreement was signed by both parties and their lawyers. In addition, the parties signed each page of the settlement agreement and initialed the handwritten changes.

A year later, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the agreement, and defendant cross-moved, asking the court to declare the agreement unenforceable.  The trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion, enforced the settlement agreement, granted a final judgment of divorce, and awarded attorneys fees to plaintiff.

On appeal, defendant asserted several grounds for reversal: (1) Defendant alleged that she did not believe the written agreement was binding in reliance upon the mediator’s retainer agreement which stated that, in the event of a settlement, the mediator would “prepare a memorandum of understanding reflecting the agreements you have reached. This memorandum is not to be signed and is not to be regarded as binding until the agreements therein are incorporated in a Property Settlement Agreement prepared by your attorneys and signed by you.” (2) Defendant did not intend to commit herself to a final settlement agreement on the date of the mediation because her primary counsel was not present, although an associate of the law firm was present. (3) The mediator exceeded her authority by drafting a final and binding settlement agreement which she asked the parties to sign.

The appeals court rejected defendant’s arguments, and affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects. The court held that public policy favored the settlement of litigation, and that mediation advanced this public policy:

A settlement is essentially a contract which is to be enforced, as written, … absent unconscionability, fraud, or overreaching in the negotiations…. N.H. v. H.H., 418 N.J. Super. 262, 282 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Miller v. Miller, 160 N.J. 408, 419 (1999)); Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130, 136 (App. Div. 1974) … Mediation is also not intended or designed as a meaningless and impotent detour on the way to judgment. The very purpose of the [mediation] process is to resolve the dispute.  Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., L.L.C., 421 N.J. Super. 445, 451-52 (App. Div. 2011), certif. granted, ___ N.J. ___ (2012).

The appeals court went on to hold that neither unconscionability, fraud, nor overreaching was present in this case. Rather, the court held that “the parties knowingly and voluntarily entered into settlement negotiations with the purpose of distributing their marital property. The parties were represented by counsel and had ample time to discuss the agreed upon provisions with their lawyers. … [N]otwithstanding the language in the mediator’s retainer agreement, ‘the parties and their counsel [had] the ability to decide, throughout the course of negotiations, that they would contract to make the agreement binding.’ … Moreover, defendant failed to produce any evidence supporting her claim that she was forced or coerced to sign the settlement agreement. A change of heart after accepting a settlement is not a basis to set aside the agreement.”

The case is annexed here -  Beim v. Sawyer

In Williamson v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals (N.J. App. Div., March 12, 2012), the New Jersey appellate court advised mediating parties how to prevent successful post-mediation challenges to settlements reached in mediation. The court’s conclusion: don’t conclude the mediation without having the parties or their counsel draft and sign a document containing the essential terms of the settlement.

In the Williamson case, plaintiff filed suit against her employer alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Constitution, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and wrongful discharge and hostile working environment. After almost two years of litigation, the parties participated in voluntary, private mediation, which lasted approximately nine hours. At the conclusion, the parties reached a settlement in which plaintiff would dismiss her complaint with prejudice in exchange for $125,000 plus the cost of six months of medical, dental and vision insurance. Plaintiff, the mediator, and an attorney for defendants signed a one-page document summarizing the terms of the settlement and agreed to sign a more detailed, final settlement agreement within one week of the date of the one-page agreement. Less than one week later, defendants forwarded to plaintiff’s counsel an eleven-page Agreement and Release. By email ten days later, plaintiff advised defendants that she was “declining settlement.”

Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement and compel plaintiff to sign the eleven-page Agreement and Release. After a hearing, the court, concluding that a settlement had been reached, entered an order which enforced the mediated settlement agreement, compelled plaintiff to execute the Agreement and Release, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, and awarded attorneys fees to plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement without conducting a hearing and making findings of fact about what occurred at the mediation. Alternatively, plaintiff argued that, even if the court concluded that a settlement had been reached, the settlement should be limited to the terms set forth in the one-page document she signed in the mediation.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part, and vacated and remanded the decision in part. The court held that defendants proved that the parties, with the advice of counsel, reached a binding settlement in principle as to all the material terms following the lengthy mediation as reflected in the one-page document signed at the mediation. However, the court vacated the provision of the trial court’s order compelling plaintiff to sign the detailed Agreement and Release, finding that the trial court failed to determine whether each of the provisions of the eleven-page Agreement and Release encompassed or exceeded the scope of the parties’ one-page settlement agreement, The court also vacated that portion of the order awarding attorneys fees to plaintiff’s counsel and remanded the issue to the trial court, holding that the award of counsel fees exceeded the parameters of the one-page settlement agreement.

The Williamson case is attached here – Williamson v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals

Our Estate/Probate and Elder Mediation Training program, held yesterday at the New Jersey Law Center, was very successful. Excellent turn-out and program quality. The attendees were very diverse, including attorneys, care managers, social workers, financial professionals, medical providers and others. Wonderful audience feedback. Many thanks to all presenters, including geriatric care managers Judith Parnes, Connie Rosenberg and Benni Versaci, geriatric physician Dr. Mark Pass, elder law attorney Gabrielle Strich, Esq., mediation marketing specialist Jennifer Decker, and the New Jersey Mental Health Players, for their hard work on the program. Bravo!

Attendee comments about yesterday’s Estate and Elder Mediation Training program:

“[A] terrific Elder Law mediation seminar yesterday. One of the best programs I’ve attended. Great speakers, lots of excellent information, including good interaction with the audience and not a wasted minute. I heard only positive comments from the participants and hope that there will be an encore for those who missed it – and more trainings in this area. Lots of potential here for both family and civil mediators.”

“The mediation training you organized yesterday was great. It was informative as well as engaging. The role play was riveting and I almost felt I was part of the family!”

“You all did such a wonderful job! Thanks for a great seminar!!!”

“I attended today’s Estate/Probate and Elder Mediation training and was very impressed … [All speakers] presented an excellent and well organized program to show how to use mediation to try to resolve family differences. The geriatric care managers were very knowledgeable and presented the ways in which their services can be used. This was a very useful day.“

“I really learned a lot from the many excellent presenters – the day was long but chock full of good information. Kudos to you and your group for all the hard work. … I hope you will repeat this program next year – if not sooner. If the buzz in the ladies’ room was any indication, the program was extremely well received by the audience.”

“Outstanding. The reports are terrific. You and the team should be quite proud.”

“I thoroughly enjoyed your presentations! I’ve already contacted one of the geriatric care managers to see if they can help someone I know. Great job!”

“Don, I have from several people that your training was excellent. Thanks for putting it together and making it a great experience for the attendees. Next year?”

“Excellent! Lots of great material and the speakers and players were informative and interesting.”

“Very good written materials.”

“I though it was great as a first time program. I would like to see it broken down to more specific areas so we are not rushed.”

“Very informative – both professionally and personally excellent!!!”

“Very comprehensive. A good investment of 8 hours.”

“Great!”

“Terrific.”

“One of the best ever! Thank you!”

“Awesome!”

“Echoing all the other positive comments and adding that program design and execution were outstanding. The balance of substantive elder law and mediation issues, diverse presenters and marketing worked well. One of the best programs I’ve attended in years.”

“Kudos to all involved in the recent elder mediation training. What a wonderful mix of lectures, role plays, demonstrations, and participatory exercises. The program gave us a lot of food for thought. Congratulations!!!”

“I learned new techniques.”

“Program was very ambitious …”

“Donald, thanks for all your work organizing [the mediation training] and getting knowledgeable speakers. It was a great session.”

“Nice conference. The mix of attorneys / geriatric care managers / finance folks / others added greatly to the repartee in the room.”

“Great content and very interesting speakers; good facility; mental health players were great.”

“Outstanding; role plays were excellent!!”

“Excellent program. Very informative. Subjects have opened up many questions and encourage more research.”

“Thank you for a highly informative, engaging and excellent program.”

“An absolute and resounding second to [the other positive] comments.  It was truly an outstandingly educational day.”

“I’m sure Don and his team are very pleased. They really pulled together a great presentation!”

“Can we run it again later in the year?”

“Please run it again! I speak for all those who could not attend due to unavoidable circumstances.”

“An advanced elder mediation training program definitely should be scheduled.”

Many thanks to the New Jersey Association of Professional Mediators for sponsoring the program, and to the Elder and Disability Law Section of the New Jersey State Bar Association for its support.

For attendees and others interested in continuing to develop estate, probate and elder mediation in New Jersey, please consider joining the NJAPM’s newly-formed Estate and Elder Special Interest Group. We meet monthly on the last Monday of each month.   

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently announced the release of 68 new forms that the agency anticipates will help speed the processing of veterans’ disability compensation and pension claims. These forms can be completed by private physicians, eliminating the need for a VA clinic examination in certain circumstances.

“VA employees will be able to more quickly process disability claims, since disability benefits questionnaires capture important medical information needed to accurately evaluate Veterans’ claims,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki. “Disability benefits questionnaires are just one of many changes VA is implementing to address the backlog of claims.”

The new medical forms, called disability benefits questionnaires (DBQs), are meant to guide physicians’ reports of medical findings, ensuring VA has exactly the medical information needed to make a prompt decision. DBQs are downloadable from the VA website. DBQs give veterans and active duty service members the option of visiting a primary care provider in their community instead of completing an evaluation at a VA facility. The streamlined forms use check boxes and standardized language so that the disability rating can be made accurately and quickly. Unfortunately, veterans are responsible for any related co-pay or costs, including costs for travel or testing.

More than 70 DBQs cover a full range of medical conditions. While some DBQs are specific to a single condition (for example: hypertension, arthritis, and prostate cancer), most forms can be used for several related conditions (for example: heart conditions, kidney conditions, endocrine conditions). An extensive list of conditions covered by the DBQs on the VA website at: http://benefits.va.gov/disabilityexams.

DBQs can be viewed on the VA website at: http://benefits.va.gov/disabilityexams.

The VA’s press release announcing the release of the new medical forms and answering frequently asked questions is annexed here: VA Press Release.