November 17th, 2013 · Comments Off
In a recent opinion, Hon. Robert B. Kugler, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, denied a motion filed by the State of New Jersey seeking the dismissal of a pending class action lawsuit which my co-counsel, Alan Sklarsky, Esq., and I filed in federal court seeking an injunction barring the State from considering the pension benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as countable income in determining an applicant’s eligibility for Medicaid. As a result, the case will proceed and the Court ultimately will decide the case on the merits. Galletta v. Velez , et al., Civil No. 13-532 (November 12, 2013)
My client, the plaintiff in this case, is the widow of a World War II veteran. She applied for benefits through NJ’s “Global Options for Long Term Care” program (Global Options), a program funded by Medicaid that covers care provided at home and in an assisted living facility. In order to be approved for the Global Options program, an applicant must prove she has income and resources below certain maximum levels.
Plaintiff’s income included benefits paid to her through the Veterans Administration Improved Pension (VAIP) program as a result of her late husband’s military service. As part of the application, plaintiff submitted a letter from the VA indicating that, of the $1,094.00 plaintiff received every month at that time in VAIP, $684.00 was designated by the VA as “pension” and $410.00 was designated as “aid and attendance. The Medicaid agency included the $684.00 designated as “pension” as countable income for Medicaid eligibility purposes, and excluded the $410.00 designated as “aid and attendance.” As a result, plaintiff’s application was denied because her income exceeded the maximum income permitted under the Global Options program. Had the portion of the VAIP designated as “pension” not been included in her countable income, plaintiff would have been eligible for Global Options.
Plaintiff contended that the entire VAIP benefit she received resulted from unreimbursed medical expenses, and therefore none of it should have been included as countable income in determining Medicaid eligibility. In January 2013, plaintiff filed a class action complaint against defendants, Jennifer Velez, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services, and Valerie Harr, Director of the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, in federal court, seeking an injunction to prevent defendants from treating VAIP benefits as income for Medicaid eligibility purposes, a re-determination of eligibility, an order granting such eligibility on a retroactive basis to class members who would have been eligible for benefits had VAIP payments not been treated as income, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
In February 2013, after filing her complaint, plaintiff submitted another letter to Medicaid from the VA indicating, contrary to the prior letter issued by the agency, that the entire amount of VAIP benefits, then totaling $1,113.00 per month, constituted “aid and attendance.” Based upon the letter, Medicaid determined that none of the VAIP benefits were countable, and that plaintiff was thus eligible for the Global Options program. Defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint as moot, arguing that plaintiff received all the benefits to which she was entitled. In opposition, plaintiff countered that her claims were not moot because she was not granted all of the relief she sought in her complaint, although Medicaid eligibility was granted.
The Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss. The Court held that the lawsuit was not moot because the State’s policy of counting VA pension in determining Medicaid eligibility had not changed, although it may be wrong as alleged by plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff might be wrongfully denied Medicaid benefits in the future after an annual eligibility review if at that time the VA issues another letter again classifying plaintiff’s VAIP as consisting of a “pension” portion.
Interestingly, the Court also narrowed the issue to be decided on the merits as follows:
Under federal [Medicaid] regulations, payments “from the Department of Veterans Affairs resulting from unusual medical expenses” may not be considered for eligibility purposes. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1103(a)(7). “Unusual medical expenses,” (“UMEs”) in turn, means unreimbursed expenditures exceeding five percent of a person’s annual income. 38 C.F.R. § 3.262(l). The issue, then, appears to be one of [statutory] interpretation …, and whether Plaintiff’s entire VAIP award—not only the aid and attendance portion—“result[ed] from unusual medical expenses.”
The case now proceeds to discovery and ultimately trial.
Judge Kugler’s opinion is annexed here – Galletta v. Velez – Opinion Denying NJ’s Motion to Dismiss
Tags: Assisted Living Facilities · Care Facilities · Elder Law · Governmental or Public Benefit Programs · Medicaid · New Cases · VA Pension Benefits · Veterans Benefits
November 16th, 2013 · Comments Off
The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli is proud to announce that Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq. has been named to the 2014 Super Lawyers list in Elder Law and Special Needs Planning. Elder Law and Special Needs Planning are legal specialties focusing on the legal needs of seniors and people with disabilities. The major legal practice areas within Elder Law and Special Needs Planning include estate planning and trust administration; Social Security, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid and other public benefits; probate litigation and will contests; disability planning, including guardianships and special needs trusts; and the protection of elders and the disabled against abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Mr. Vanarelli was named to the Super Lawyers list in each of the past eight (8) years.
There are more than 85,000 attorneys practicing in New Jersey in 55 specialty categories, but only five percent (5%) are named to the Super Lawyers list each year. The Super Lawyers list identifies those lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes peer evaluations, a credentials review, and review by a blue ribbon panel of leading attorneys. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. The Super Lawyers selection methodology can be found here.
A brief history of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recognition of the “Super Lawyers” designation may be appropriate. In 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to conduct an investigation into the validity of the selection methodology used by “Super Lawyers” and other attorney ranking services. After a year-long investigation, the Special Master issued a 304 page report, concluding that the “Super Lawyers” methodology for selecting outstanding attorneys was valid. As a result, in 2008 our Supreme Court, for the first time, permitted attorneys to publicly identify themselves as having been selected for inclusion in the list of “New Jersey Super Lawyers.” In re Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, 197 N.J. 66 (2008)
The Law Office of Donald D. Vanarelli congratulates Mr. Vanarelli on being named to the Super Lawyer List in New Jersey in 2014, and in prior years.
Tags: Personal Achievements and Awards
November 13th, 2013 · Comments Off
On March 13, 2013, the highest court of our state granted my Petition for Certification, in which I asked the Supreme Court to consider the case of a retired fireman and his continuing battle to conduct estate planning for the benefit of his severely disabled son. This is the second time the Supreme Court has granted my request for certification and accepted this case for review. I previously blogged about this case, and the most recent petition for certification, here.
I am pleased to report that on October 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted motions of several non-profit organizations to appear and argue in the case on behalf of their organizations, as amicus curiae. An amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” may ask to appear in a case based on the public importance of the case, and the special interest or expertise that the amicus curiae can bring to the case. Here, the Guardianship Association of New Jersey, Inc. (“GANJI”), the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc. (“NAELA”), the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, New Jersey Chapter (“NAELA-NJ”), and the Special Needs Alliance (“SNA”) were all granted permission to appear as amicus curiae. All of these organizations filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Division’s decision.
GANJI is a state-wide organization of professionals and others committed to supporting guardians and assisting persons with disabilities. NAELA-NJ assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of the aged and disabled. GANJI and NAELA-NJ have filed a joint brief, in which their counsel (Daniel J. Jurkovic, Esq. and Robert F. Brogan, Esq.) argue that the Appellate Division’s decision restricts the autonomy of the disabled, noting that, although he is not in need of a guardian, the firefighter’s disabled son might have to have a guardian appointed, merely to receive the PFRS survivor benefit check. GANJI/NAELA-NJ asks that the matter be remanded to the PFRS agency to promulgate regulations that allow these survivor benefits to be paid to a “sole benefit” trust.
NAELA assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of the aged and disabled. Its attorney, John W. Callinan, Esq., argues that the disabled have a right to maximize their entitlement to government benefits, that a first-party SNT is merely an extension of the firefighter’s disabled son, and that he should be permitted to have the PFRS benefits payable to a first-party SNT.
SNA is an organization that assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of those needing the protection of special needs trusts. Its counsel (Shirley B. Whitenack, Esq., Of Counsel and Ron M. Landsman, Esq., On the Brief) argues that the retired firefighter should be permitted to establish a first-party SNT, and that the PFRS benefits be paid to that trust.
I welcome the significant insight and expertise that the amicus curiae bring to this case, which is expected to be argued before the Supreme Court this winter.
Tags: Beneficiary Designations · Elder Law · Estate Planning · Government Pensions · Governmental or Public Benefit Programs · Legal Rights of the Disabled · Medicaid · Medicaid Planning · News Briefs · Retirement Benefits · Special Needs Planning · Special Needs Trusts · Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefits · Trusts
November 12th, 2013 · Comments Off
The New Hampshire legislature has enacted a new law that allows nursing homes to sue anyone who received an asset transfer from a nursing home resident, and also makes the resident’s fiduciaries liable for the cost of care under certain circumstances. This new legislation became law on July 2, 2013. The law, enacted under Title 11 of the New Hampshire statures, §151-E:19, is entitled “Support for Certain Residents of Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities.”
Under the new law, if a nursing home resident transfers assets and that transfer leads to a Medicaid disqualification, the nursing home can sue the person who received the transfer for the nursing home resident’s cost of care, up to the amount transferred. The transferee will be liable at the Medicaid-pay rate, not the private-pay rate. The person sued under this provision can challenge whether the transfer should have been disqualifying, and a Court rather than the Medicaid agency shall decide whether the transfer was disqualifying under the Medicaid rules.
In addition, a nursing home may sue anyone who has control of the resident’s assets and has the authority to file a Medicaid application on behalf of the resident and is negligent in “failing to promptly and fully complete and pursue an application for Medicaid benefits for the resident.” This provision applies to the resident’s fiduciaries, which could be someone acting under a durable power of attorney, an attorney-in-fact, a legal guardian, trustee, or representative payee. The fiduciary would be responsible for the resident’s cost of care for the period the resident was not covered by Medicaid, at the facility’s Medicaid rate. A resident’s fiduciary may also be liable if he or she refuses to pay the resident’s monthly income to the facility as required by the Medicaid agency.
The death of a facility resident does not nullify or otherwise affect the liability of the person or persons charged with the cost of care rendered by the nursing facility under New Hampshire’s new law.
To read the new statute, click here: Support for Certain Residents of Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities
(Courtesy of ElderLawAnswers Weekly)
Tags: Care Facilities · Elder Law · Governmental or Public Benefit Programs · Liability of "Responsible Party" · Medicaid · New Laws · News Briefs · Nursing Facility Litigation · Nursing Homes
November 10th, 2013 · Comments Off
In this case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging that the State of New York failed to render final decisions following Fair Hearings within the ninety-day period following the filing of Fair Hearing requests as required by federal and state law. Menking v. Daines, Docket No. 09-CV-4103 (S.D.N.Y., September 21, 2013)
Plaintiff Marie Menking, a New York resident, was an inpatient at Fort Tryon Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing (“Fort Tryon”), a nursing home, from fall 2005 through late spring 2006. After plaintiff’s application for Medicaid coverage of the nursing home costs incurred at Fort Tryon was denied by a August 23, 2007 Notice, plaintiff filed a timely request for a Fair Hearing to appeal the denial. A Notice of Fair Hearing was issued dated January 17, 2008, 106 days after the request, and a fair hearing was scheduled on February 7, 2008, 127 days after the request was filed. After a number of adjournments requested by plaintiff, the fair hearing concluded on November 7, 2008. As of April 27, 2009, the date on which plaintiff filed her federal complaint, plaintiff had not received a decision on her Fair Hearing.
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a certified statewide class of applicants for, or recipients of, Medicaid benefits, brought this lawsuit against the New York State’s Department of Health and the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance asking the Court to enjoin defendants’ routine practice of failing to render final decisions following Fair Hearings within the ninety-day period following receipt of claimants’ requests for Fair Hearing as required under federal and state law.
After completing discovery proceedings, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued that whether plaintiff had suffered an actual injury due to defendants’ conduct, a prerequisite to her standing to bring a claim, was an issue of disputed material fact. In response, the Court ruled that plaintiff had standing because unlawful administrative delays in scheduling and holding Fair Hearing past the required ninety-day period constituted an “actual injury.”
Further, the Court held that the matter was ripe for summary judgment because it was uncontested that plaintiffs experienced substantial delays in scheduling Fair Hearings and in rendering decisions after the Fair Hearings. The Court found the delays to be “in clear violation of the ninety-day limit mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(3), 42 C.F.R. §431.244(f), and SMM § 2902.10.” Moreover, the court found that defendants’ rate of noncompliance with the ninety-day requirement as a percentage of total number of statewide Medicaid Fair Hearing decisions rendered was substantial: 38.2% for 2006, 41.7% for 2007, 35.7% for 2008, and 25.4% based on partial information for 2009. As a result, the Court entered summary judgment on behalf of plaintiffs.
After ruling for plaintiffs, the Court directed counsel for the parties to confer and inform the Court how they proposed to resolve the action.
The case is attached here – Menking v. Daines
Tags: Elder Law · Governmental or Public Benefit Programs · Interesting New Cases · Legal Rights of the Disabled · Litigation · Medicaid · Medicaid Applications · New Cases · Nursing Facility Litigation
November 9th, 2013 · Comments Off
The Special Needs Trust Fairness Act, recently introduced in the U.S. House and Senate, would permit competent individuals with disabilities to establish their own self-settled special needs trusts. The proposed law should be quickly enacted.
Congress legally recognized the use of self-settled Supplemental Needs Trusts (sometimes called Special Needs Trusts) (“SNTs”) in 1993. SNTs allow assets owned by a disabled person to be transferred to and held in a trust for that individual. The assets in SNTs are not considered countable assets for purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), housing and other benefits provided by the NJ’s Division of Developmental Disabilities and other government benefits based upon financial need. Therefore, SNTs protect the disabled against risk of complete impoverishment. SNTs can be used to supplement daily living expenses and care when government benefits alone are insufficient.
Unfortunately, individuals with disabilities are treated differently than others under the law when creating SNTs. SNTs may be established only by a parent, grandparent, legal guardian of the individual, or a court. The individual cannot create his or her own SNT even if he or she is mentally competent. Thus, current law improperly assumes a person with disabilities lacks the requisite mental capacity to create a SNT. An individual with disabilities who has the requisite mental capacity is not legally allowed to create his or her own SNT.
There is no obvious reason why the disabled person him/herself was omitted from the class of persons who are authorized to create SNTs under the law. The omission might be nothing more than a legislative drafting error. Whatever the reason, the omission has created the often erroneous presumption that a disabled individual lacks the requisite mental capacity to create his or her own SNT. Further, not all disabled individuals are lucky enough to have a living parent or grandparent willing to create a SNT for them. Also, having to petition the court results in unnecessary legal costs for the individual with disabilities and the loss of a significant amount of time spent in petitioning the court. In some cases, if a disabled person does not have the funds to hire a lawyer, then that person loses his or her access to necessary government benefits. This inequity in the law also affects disabled veterans and their families.
The Special Needs Trust Fairness Act would remove the misplaced presumption that individuals with disabilities lack mental capacity. In addition, since an individual with disabilities who has the requisite mental capacity can create other types of trusts, often without legal assistance, allowing an individual with disabilities who has the requisite mental capacity to create his or her own SNT will put SNTs on equal footing with other types of trusts. Moreover, the proposed law would be cost-neutral. Whoever is permitted to create the SNT, all SNTs under the law must have a “payback” provision which provides that, upon the disabled individual’s death, any funds remaining in the SNT after the individual’s death must first be used to pay back the state for any Medicaid benefits received during the individual ’s lifetime. Thus, the Special Needs Trust Fairness Act would impose a simple fix which will not be costly, but will save disabled individuals, including veterans, thousands of dollars that can be spent on necessary items and care for these individuals to survive and have the best chance for a quality life.
Readers are encouraged to contact their congresspeople and tell them you support the bill.
The Special Needs Trust Fairness Act is attached here – Special Needs Trust Fairness Act of 2013
Tags: New Laws · Special Needs Planning · Special Needs Trusts
November 8th, 2013 · Comments Off
The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education and the NJ State Bar Association Elder and Disability Law Section are presenting the 19th Annual Sophisticated Elder Law Forum on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at the New Jersey Law Center from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This annual event features a panel of experienced elder lawyers from across the state plus a guest speaker. This year, I will be presenting with elder law attorney John Callinan, Esq. on “Medicaid and Veterans Benefits Planning – What’s Hot and What’s Not.”
9:00 Introduction & Opening Remarks – Lawrence A. Friedman, Esq.
9:05 Interstate aspects of guardianships – Shirley Whitenack, Esq.
9:40 Ethics and professionalism considerations in an elder law and special needs practice – Cynthia Sharp, Esq.
10:45 Keynote Presentation with Avram Sacks, Esq. Maximizing Social Security benefits
1:05 Estate planning for same sex couples – Mark Friedman, Esq.
1:40 Special needs trust update – Lawrence A. Friedman, Esq.
2:15 Hot Tips in Estate and Retirement Planning – Richard Greenberg, Esq.
3:00 Medicaid planning and Veterans benefits planning- What’s hot and what’s not – John Callinan, Esq.; Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq.
4:30 Conclusion & wrap up questions – Entire Panel
Click here to register for the 19th Annual Sophisticated Elder Law Forum
Tags: Events · Personal Achievements and Awards
November 6th, 2013 · Comments Off
On October 31, 2013, proposed changes to the process of filing disability claims and appeals with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) were published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice can be found here. The proposed changes, which are significant, relate to the filing of informal claims and notices of disagreements.
There are two major components to the proposed changes. First, the new rules require all disability claims to be filed on standardized forms specified by VA. Standardized forms would be required for all disability claims regardless of the type or nature of the claim. VA Form 526 or 526EZ is required for original (first – time) disability claims, and a version of VA Form 526 is required for supplemental (subsequent) claims.
Under current law, a veteran or survivor is not required to use a form to seek disability benefits from VA. Rather, veterans can submit applications for benefits through informal communication, by submitting a claim in writing on a sheet of paper, a submission which VA is required to construe as a claim. Under 38 CFR 3.155 ” any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws…..” must be accepted by the VA as a claim for benefits. In these instances, follow-up contact is often necessary for clarification and missing information. This step adds considerable time to the processing of claims and appeals, delaying decisions. The new rules would no longer allow an informal claim in order to expedite the process. The only way that an incomplete application would be acceptable is if the claimant files the partially completed primary application form through the VA website, eBenefits.
Second, the new rules require all appeals to be filed using a standardized Notice of Disagreement in cases where VA provides that form to the claimant. Currently veterans and survivors may either write to the VA on any piece of paper expressing dissatisfaction with a claims decision and their desire to appeal, or may use VA Form 21-0958 Notice of Disagreement. The proposed rule would require veterans to use only a VA Form 21-0958 to initiate the appeals process.
I see at least two problems in requiring all claimants to use VA Form 21-0958 in filing an appeal. The form’s pre-typed columns primarily address veteran’s compensation claims and not other types of claims such as pension and accrued benefits. In addition, Form 21-0958 does not always give the claimant, attorney, or agent the ability to fully explain why the VA decision is in error.
The new rule announced in the Federal Register is simply a proposal. A period of public comment is required before the rules changes go into effect. I urge readers to post concerns about these proposed changes as soon as possible. Written comments may be submitted through www.regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AO81-Standard Claims and Appeals Forms.”
A Fact Sheet issued by the VA to explain the proposed rules is annexed here – VA Fact Sheet – Standard Claims and Appeals
Tags: New Laws · VA Compensation Benefits · VA Pension Benefits · Veterans Benefits
October 22nd, 2013 · Comments Off
The end of a marriage or relationship can be tragic enough. Often, the process of divorcing only adds to the pain. You and your spouse or partner may come to see each other as adversaries and the divorce as a battleground. You may experience feelings of confusion, anger, loss and conflict. Under such circumstances, you might find it difficult to see an end to divorce, much less imagine a hopeful future afterwards.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. A growing number of divorcing couples, along with other professionals such as lawyers, mental health professionals and financial specialists, have been seeking a more constructive alternative. These professionals have developed the Collaborative Divorce model.
Collaborative Divorce is a new way for divorcing couples to resolve disputes respectfully—without going to court—while working with professionals trained in resolving divorce issues collaboratively. The goal in a Collaborative Divorce is for you and your spouse to keep control of all decisions involving the divorce yourselves, rather than giving decision-making authority to a judge. In order to accomplish that goal, the parties agree in writing to be part of a process that leads to an out-of-court resolution. Collaborative Divorce participants develop effective post-marital relationships by solving problems jointly, thereby preventing court battles.
Collaborative Practice is based on three principles:
- A pledge not to go to court
- An honest exchange of information by both spouses
- The negotiation of mutually acceptable settlement without court involvement
The Collaborative Divorce model provides for face-to-face meetings with you, your spouse, your respective lawyers and your team as needed. These sessions are intended to produce an honest exchange of information and expression of needs and expectations by each party. When the issues are openly discussed by the divorcing couple with other professionals present, problem solving can be direct and solutions-oriented rather than bitter, angry exchanges.
The Collaborative Divorce model offers you and your spouse or partner the support, protection, and guidance of your own lawyers without going to court. Additionally, the Collaborative Divorce model provides you with access to child and financial specialists, divorce coaches and other skilled and compassionate professionals who are members of your team. Each professional is an expert in his or her field. The team members help you manage the many aspects of divorce—the legal issues, the emotional turmoil, the concerns for children and the financial and property questions. With such support you’ll feel in control of the process itself, and better equipped to begin a new life afterwards.
Questions for potential participants in the Collaborative Divorce process:
- Is your ability to achieve a successful outcome in the divorce primarily dependent on the decisions you make during the process?
- Are you willing to let go of some smaller, short-term issues, even though it may be very hard to do so, in order to achieve your most important goals?
- Are you capable of making the emotional commitment necessary to achieve the best possible outcome?
- Are you afraid of or intimidated by your spouse?
- Are you willing to try to see things from your spouse’s point of view in order to help achieve the best possible outcome?
- Do you believe it is possible for you and your spouse to restore enough trust in each other to achieve a successful outcome?
- Are you willing to commit yourself fully to resolve the issues through the collaborative process by working toward common interests rather than simply arguing in favor of your positions?
- Is it important to you that you and your spouse maintain a respectful and effective relationship after the divorce?
- Have you accepted the fact that this divorce is going to happen?
- Do you believe that it is very important that your children maintain a strong, healthy relationship with both parents?
If most of your answers to the above questions are “yes,” you may be a candidate for a Collaborative Divorce, the new way for divorcing couples to resolve disputes respectfully—without going to court.
(Adapted from the Collaborative Practice “Knowledge Kit” published by the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals)
Tags: Collaborative Family Law · Family Law
October 16th, 2013 · Comments Off
Attorney Donald D. Vanarelli, the founder of our law firm, will be presenting at the following workshops and seminars in upcoming months:
1. Mr. Vanarelli will be presenting a workshop entitled “Legal and Financial Considerations” at the Alzheimer’s Caregiver Conference to be held on Saturday, November 2, 2013, at Union County College, Cranford, NJ. Workshop topics include: Planning for Disability, Estate Planning, Planning for Long Term Care, including a review of Government Sources for the Payment of Long Term Care Costs: Medicare, Medicaid and VA Benefits. The seminar is free to the public, however, seating is limited. To register, contact the Greater NJ Chapter, Alzheimer’s Association, at 973-586-4300.
2. Mr. Vanarelli will be addressing the Mountainside Active Retirees Group at Mountainside Borough Hall on November 12, 2013 on “Preserving Your Estate by Planning for Disability”. Mr. Vanarelli will provide important information concerning Guardianships, Last Wills and Testaments, Durable and Springing Powers of Attorney, Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts, Advance Medical Directives (Living Wills). and the new Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. All members of the Mountainside Active Retiree Group are welcome.
3. On November 19, 2013, Mr. Vanarelli will be speaking to an audience of attorneys and other professionals at the 19th Annual Sophisticated Elder Law program, to be held at the New Jersey Law Center in New Brunswick, NJ. Mr. Vanarelli will present on the topic of “Medicaid and Veterans Benefits Planning – What’s Hot and What’s Not.” The Sophisticated Elder Law Program, an annual seminar hosted by the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE), is designed to educate experienced Elder Law attorneys on the latest estate and public benefit planning techniques and keep them abreast of recent trends and cases. To register, contact NJICLE at www.njicle.com.
4. On December 19, 2013, Mr. Vanarelli will speak to attorneys who are seeking to expand their practices into Elder Law at the 2013 Elder Law College hosted by NJICLE to be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Fairfield, NJ. Mr. Vanarelli will address the group on the various benefits available from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), focusing on VA pension benefits. To register, contact NJICLE at www.njicle.com.
Tags: Events · Personal Achievements and Awards