Tags: Blog Roundup and Highlights
Last month, as in previous years, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) held its annual “UnProgram” in Dallas. It’s one of my favorite NAELA events. Elder law practitioners and special needs / disability law attorneys from around the country met in small groups (of 5 to 15 or so) to brainstorm, network, exchange ideas/forms, and discuss substantive legal issues, winning office management techniques and successful practice development ideas. The “UnProgram” is unique because there really is no “program” and no prepared presentations. Rather, the participants determine the UnProgram schedule, suggest session topics and facilitate discussions. It’s like no other educational event I’ve participated in.
Each year, one of the most popular sessions held at the UnProgram is called “20 Tips.” In the “20 Tips” session, the group facilitator elicits at least one tip, or new and useful idea, from each conference attendee that he or she discovered at the UnProgram which the attendee intends to implement in his/her law practice. The aim of the session is to provide participants with about 20 new ideas they never considered before. The popular “20 Tips” session was repeated twice at this year’s UnProgram. Below I’ve listed the best “20 Tips” (plus several bonus tips) provided by the UnProgram attendees this year. I hope the ideas are helpful to readers.
- Send a “welcome to the firm” confirmation letter to each new appointment. Detail how to get to the office, what the initial charge will be, why the questionnaire needs to be filled out, and explain that parents will talk to the lawyer without children there, that a picture will be taken for the firm’s file, that a copy of the client’s drivers license will be made for future notarization purposes, etc.
- Accept credit cards. Use the Square (www.squareup.com) for a no-monthly-fee, 2.75% flat rate solution for occasional uses. Also, the Square offers a really cool add-on device to make it work through your iPhone or Android phone.
- Use multiple monitors — but make sure you set them up for all staff members, too.
- Try this business model: no associate attorneys, just a couple partners and a collection of really smart and capable legal assistants (attendee suggesting this is one of two partners with 7 non-lawyer employees)
- Administer personality tests (some kind of simplified Myers-Briggs test like Keirsey [http://www.keirsey.com/], True Colors [http://truecolorstest.com/], etc.) to all employees. Discuss as a group and figure out how to best communicate with one another. Try doing all this at an out-of-office retreat, coupled with team-building exercises and fun (like Paintball!).
- Get a business coach — like The Lawyers Coach (http://www.thelawyercoach.com/) — with a background in law, marketing, sales, management. Phone conversations about three times per month. Someone to bounce ideas off, report to, keep things moving forward
- Provide $100 gift certificates for dinner at local restaurants for referral sources.
- Teach in your local community-college (or equivalent) paralegal program. It’s good exposure, it gets referrals from the students themselves when they have problems relating to their elderly parents AND when their bosses need elder law referrals, and it gives you first shot at the best new paralegals before they are in the job market.
- LastPass (https://lastpass.com/) or 1Password (https://agilebits.com/onepassword) for strong password management and protection.
- Put a scanner on every desk. It saves time and makes it easy to do the scanning while documents move through the office. Group favorite scanner for this purpose: the Fujitsu ScanSnap S1500 (http://www.amazon.com/Fujitsu-ScanSnap-Instant-Sheet-Fed-Scanner/dp/tags-on-product/B001V9LQH0) costs about $400, comes with a full version of Adobe Acrobat, and automatically scans both sides of the paper, discards blank pages, rotates the pages and has an ADF. For cleaning out closed files, consider a professional scanning company — it is not as expensive as you think.
- Take pictures of your clients. When a client dies, send your picture to the surviving spouse or family members with a handwritten note about how you enjoyed working with the client.
- For solos: set up reciprocal powers of attorney with another solo so that you both have someone to run/close up your practices in the event of disability or death.
- Find alternatives to regular mail for most clients. Get their e-mail addresses and ask if it’s OK to send copies, notices, etc., to that address. Saves money on folding, mailing, stamping.
- Accept appointment as a trustee. It improves your drafting and your advice regarding trust administration — plus it is a fun, reliable income source.
- Give clients the VisPro (http://www.info4vets.com/) software disk directly, and let them fill in the VA information themselves (if you do VA work).
- Use VOIP phone system. Person providing this tip took one unit home, plugged it in (following simple instructions) and now has a phone at home that acts like an extension in her office so she can buzz her secretary, take calls as if she was sitting in the office. Avid (http://avid-telecom.com/about.html)
- Give a monthly bonus to every employee based on number of new cases opened (e.g.: if 30 cases are opened, everyone gets a $500 bonus — at 35 cases, $750 bonus). New cases picked up dramatically.
- Hire a personal money manager to come to the office once a month (or so) and pay bills, balance checkbooks in cases where you act as trustee, conservator, or other fiduciary.
- Use a cover letter with Medicaid or estate planning documents telling clients to sign and record deeds, etc.
- Skype business package (http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/business/) costs about $4/month/employee. Each user gets a different login name from their regular Skype account. This makes it easy to teleconference with the office for people who take long vacations or work from home or another city.
- Friday list: make a checklist of things that have to get done every Friday before everyone can go home (backup started, desks cleared off, valuables put in safe, file indexing begun, etc.). Improves compliance.
- Ask employees to come to work a half hour early every workday, but allow them to leave Fridays at 3:00. Office phones are turned off on Friday afternoons. Clients are told the office is closed Friday afternoon.
- Take Fridays off to do work. Employees choose whether to work 4 10-hour days or to work 5 8-hour days, but no phones, no appointments on Friday.
- When completed with a Medicaid planning file, send a plant to the family. Really builds client appreciation/loyalty, and at a modest cost.
- Send flowers when a client dies. Make a monthly donation to your local Agency on Aging, and list deceased clients of that month as honorees.
- Make an arrangement with your local style magazine or newspaper (including throwaway) to contribute a regular article on legal topics. Buy a small ad, make sure no other lawyers are included in the same deal.
- Write a book, self-publish it and distribute on your website.
- Pick one day a week to work late. Schedule clients into the evening hours on that date if they need after-5 appointments. (This tip was not unanimously approved.)
- For holiday gifts, secure poinsettias or other flowers from a local charity Invite colleagues and referral sources to an office open house to drink a glass of wine, chat, and pick up a poinsettia. Each plant can have a little plug for the charity, too.
- $1 coffee mugs w/office logo — give the client a cup of coffee and insist they take the mug with them. Also travel mugs. Also water bottles.
- Flash drives — get a personalized flash drive with firm logo to put advance directives and other estate documents on.
- Specifically exclude the power to consent to (or bind the principal to) arbitration clauses in Powers of Attorneys (POAs).
- In POAs, include a power in the agent to remove the principal’s driving privileges if he/she becomes an unsafe driver. Although the provision is probably unenforceable, it helps focus clients on a big problem and concern.
- Spring and fall season seminars for case managers, discharge planners, financial planners, nurses, etc. Offer CE credits if possible. Charge a small amount (some say free, others say don’t not charge).
- Do professional presentations at the offices of others. Let them do the promotion work and bring the audience. They benefit, you benefit.
Tags: Events · Law Practice Management / Development · Technology
In its January 27, 2012 decision in CTC Demolition Company, Inc. v. GMH AETC Management/Development LLC, which has been approved for publication, the Appellate Division considered the novel issue of whether a party’s demand for mediation or arbitration triggers the “first to file” rule. Notably, the court had found only one decision in any jurisdiction considering the impact of mediation or arbitration on the first to file rule of comity, which provides that courts will generally defer to a court that first acquires jurisdiction over a dispute.
The CTC Demolition court ruled that a demand for mediation or arbitration may be viewed as a first-filed action, such that the adverse party’s later declaratory judgment suit in another state is subject to dismissal. It reasoned that, although the first-filed rule was originally based upon the first filing of a lawsuit,
the proliferation of mediation and arbitration as an alternate but highly-favored method for resolving disputes since the first-filed rule’s development, suggests … that [the] demand for mediation should be treated like the filing of a complaint.
In CTC, the parties had entered into three contracts containing dispute resolution terms that required mediation, followed by arbitration, if necessary, as a condition precedent to litigation. After a dispute arose, plaintiff served the defendant with a demand for mediation in New Jersey. In response, the defendant filed suit in Pennsylvania. The CTC court ruled that “once mediation was demanded to occur in New Jersey, the later institution of the Pennsylvania action represented an untoward attempt to move the situs of this dispute.” The court concluded that the trial court had “correctly refused to defer to the Pennsylvania action.”
A copy of the January 27, 2012 opinion can be found here – CTC Demolition Company v. GMH Management
Tags: Arbitration · Commercial Mediation · Compelling Mediation Testimony · Mediation · New Cases
Currently, the value of assets passing to heirs upon the death of a U.S. citizen free of federal estate taxes, called the federal estate tax exemption amount, is $5.12 million dollars per person. This federal estate tax exemption amount is valid through the end of 2012.
In the past, upon the death of the first member of a married couple, the federal estate tax exemption of $5.12 million dollars would be applied to assets in the estate owned by that first deceased spouse in order to reduce or eliminate the estate taxes due. However, if that first spouse owned assets worth less than $5.12 million dollars, the balance of the federal estate tax exemption left over would disappear. Then, the second spouse to die could utilize his/her own $5.12 million dollar exemption amount to offset estate taxes due for his/her own estate assets, but could not access the unused portion of the federal estate tax exemption amount resulting at the death of the first spouse.
Some married couples preserved the federal estate tax exemption amount of the first spouse to die by re-titling assets and using testamentary trusts. However, there was no way to preserve the unused portion of the federal estate tax exemption amount of the first spouse to die except by utilizing these more sophisticated estate planning techniques.
Recently however, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2011-82 to alert executors of the estates of decedents dying after Dec. 31, 2010 of a new, simpler method of preserving the unused portion of the federal estate tax exemption amount of the first spouse to die. This new method involves making a “portability” election through the filing of United States Estate and Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Return, known as Form 706.
This “portability” election allows executors to pass along the unused portion of the federal estate tax exemption amount of the first spouse to die to the surviving spouse without the necessity of using sophisticated estate planning techniques to preserve the exemption amount.
In order to qualify for the “portability” election, the IRS requires that specific rules must be followed. These rules are contained within Notice 2011-82. Most importantly, to make the election, the executor must file Form 706 for the decedent’s estate on a timely basis, even if the executor would not otherwise be obligated to file Form 706. By timely filing Form 706, an estate will be considered to have made the “portability” election. No election may be made if the Form 706 is filed after the time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing.
Although the federal estate tax exemption amount is always subject to change, and will, in fact, likely be changed this year or soon thereafter, the benefit of the “portability” election is well worth the effort required to file Form 706. Therefore, if you have been appointed the executor or administrator of an estate, you should consider electing “portability” of the federal estate tax exemption amount by filing Form 706 on a timely basis.
The notice from the IRS is attached here – Notice 2011-82
Tags: Estate Planning · Estate and Gift Taxes · New Laws · Taxation
In the December 13, 2011 Estate of Sano Chancery Division case, the decedent’s wife had sued the decedent’s former employee (Ms. Chung) and that employee’s sister (Ms. Choi), claiming that they defrauded and unduly influenced the decedent to change a beneficiary designation of a $2.5 million life insurance policy. The policy had originally named the decedent’s business as primary beneficiary and his wife as secondary beneficiary, but was later changed to name Ms. Chung as the sole beneficiary. Ms. Chung and Ms. Choi were sisters of the decedent’s former business partner. Ms. Chung was the decedent’s long-time employee and friend, and the two allegedly began a romantic relationship after the beneficiary designation change. Ms. Choi was the decedent’s insurance agent who obtained both the original policy and the beneficiary change in issue.
Before the court was a motion for summary judgment, in which the defendants argued that the plaintiff had “no knowledge of any facts underlying the allegations set forth in her complaint.” (Slip op. at 5). Defendants asserted that, because plaintiff’s complaint was based upon speculation, summary judgment was appropriate. Defendant Choi also argued that plaintiff’s claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against her should be dismissed for failure to file an affidavit of merit.
Although acknowledging the plaintiff’s “inability to point to specific facts in the record in opposing … summary judgment” (slip op. at 23), the court rejected the defendants’ emphasis on the plaintiff’s claims being implausible. The court acknowledged that plaintiff would face “significant hurdles” at the time of trial. Nevertheless, it noted that, in a summary judgment motion, the court is not required to determine the likelihood of success at trial. As to the claims of undue influence, fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and conversion, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, such that summary judgment was inappropriate.
However, with respect to the claims of breach of fiduciary and negligence that were asserted against Ms. Choi, the court found those claims were alleging professional malpractice against Ms. Choi. Because there was no evidence that Ms. Choi’s actions were negligence as a matter of law, the court concluded that an expert would be needed, and that the plaintiff’s failure to provide an expert report or file an affidavit of merit necessitated dismissal of those claims.
A copy of the December 13, 2011 opinion can be found here – Estate of Sano
Tags: Estate Litigation · Lack of Testamentary Capacity · Litigation · New Cases · Summary Judgment · Undue Influence
Below is a roundup of the top 10 national elder law decisions for the past year, as measured by the readers of the ElderLawAnswers website.
1. Medicaid Applicant’s Penalty Period Does Not Begin Until Returned Assets Are Spent Down
In Marino v. Velez (U.S. Ct. App., 3rd Cir., No. 10-2324, Jan. 10, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, ruled that a New Jersey Medicaid applicant who transferred assets and then had some of the transfers returned cannot get credit toward her penalty period for the time before the transfers were returned that she was resource-eligible.
2. State Cannot Recover Assets That Were Transferred Before Medicaid Recipient Died
In In Re: Estate of Perry (Idaho Dist. Ct., 4th Dist., No. CV-IE-2009-05214, March 16, 2011), an Idaho district court ruled that the state cannot recover assets from the estate of a Medicaid recipient’s spouse that were transferred to the spouse before the Medicaid recipient died.
3. Federal Court Ruled Medicaid May Recover Cost Of Medical Care From Recovery For Future Medical Expenses
A federal district court ruled that a state Medicaid agency may recover the cost of a beneficiary’s medical care from the portion of her personal injury settlement that was allocated to medical expenses, regardless of whether the funds were allocated to past or future medical care. Perez v. Henneberry (D. Colo., No. 09-cv-01681-WJM-MEH, April 26, 2011).
4. Court Upholds Nursing Home Resident’s Eviction Prior to Resolution of Medicaid Appeal
In King v. Butler Rest Home Inc. (Ky. Ct. App., No. 2010-CA-001467-MR, June 17, 2011), a Kentucky appeals court held that a nursing home may evict a resident for nonpayment despite a pending Medicaid appeal.
5. Payments to Caregivers of Dementia Patient Are Deductible Medical Expenses
The U.S. Tax Court ruled that payments to caregivers of a dementia patient are deductible medical expenses, even though the caregivers were not licensed health care providers. Estate of Lillian Baral (U.S. Tax Ct., No. 3618-10, July 5, 2011).
6. Third Circuit Affirmed That N.J. May Count Promissory Notes As Available Resources
In a long-running case that has bounced back and forth between two federal courts, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New Jersey’s Medicaid agency may analyze promissory notes as trust-like devices and count the notes as available resources. Sable v. Velez (U.S. Ct. App., 3rd Cir., No. 10-4647, July 12, 2011). I previously blogged about this very important case here.
7. Transfer of Medicaid Applicant’s House to Son Falls Within Caregiver Child Exception
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that the transfer of a Medicaid applicant’s house to her caregiver son was not subject to a Medicaid penalty period because it fell within the “caregiver child” exception to Medicaid rules prohibiting the transfer of assets. V.P. v. Department of Human Services (N.J. Sup. Ct., App. Div., No. A-2362-09T1, Sept. 2, 2011). I previously blogged about the V.P. case here.
8. U.S. Court Rules Connecticut Likely Cannot Refuse Spousal Refusal Doctrine
Ruling that a state statute violates federal Medicaid law, a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing Connecticut from denying Medicaid benefits to an applicant seeking to disregard his spouse’s assets using the doctrine of spousal refusal. Fortmann v. Starkowski (D. Ct., No 3:10cv1562 (JBA), Sept. 28, 2011).
9. Medicaid Applicant’s Transfer to Daughter Created Trust-Like Device
In Pfeffer v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Ariz., No. CV-11-0891-PHX-GMS, Sept. 29, 2011), a federal district court ruled that when a Medicaid applicant transferred money to her daughter with the intention that the daughter pay for her care during the resulting penalty period, she created a trust-like device, so the money is still an available resource.
10. Irrevocable Trust Set Up by Medicaid Applicant’s Children Is Available Asset
In Hedlund v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health Services (Wis. Ct. App., No. 2010AP3070, Oct. 13, 2011), a Wisconsin appeals court ruled that a Medicaid applicant who transferred funds to her children, who then put them in an irrevocable trust for her benefit, is ineligible for Medicaid because the trust is an available asset under state law, even though the transfer occurred 17 years before she applied for Medicaid.
Tags: Elder Law · Medicaid Planning · New Cases · Top Ten
In the January 4, 2012 Marinaccio v. Grgec decision, the Appellate Division was presented with an appeal of a probate matter that had been decided by an umpire under the New Jersey Alternate Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (“APDRA”). The Appellate Division held that, after the umpire’s decision not to vacate a probate settlement agreement is reviewed at the trial level, it is not subject to further appellate review.
The plaintiff, Frank Marinaccio, had been sued by his sisters concerning the distribution of testamentary trusts. During the course of the litigation, the parties agreed to mediate the dispute, and ultimately executed a settlement agreement. The agreement provided that the brother would give each sister $250,000 from the proceeds of sale of the parents’ home, and that the brother would use his best efforts to market and sell the house expeditiously. It also provided that further disputes would be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the APDRA, before the umpire who had mediated the case.
Based upon the brother’s failure to market and sell the house, the sisters moved before the umpire to have Mr. Marinaccio declared in violation of the agreement. They also sought fees and costs, purusant to R. 1:10-3. The brother, in turn, moved to vacate the settlement agreement. With respect to the motion to vacate, the umpire found that the brother failed to meet the requirements of R. 4:50-1b to justify such relief. He also awarded the sisters legal fees.
Relying on N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13(c)(5), Mr. Marinaccio sought review by the Chancery Division. The chancery court confirmed the umpire’s decision not to vacate the settlement, as well as the umpire’s fee award.
On further appeal, the Appellate Division ruled that the chancery court’s decision on the motion to vacate was not further appealable under the APDRA: in their settlement agreement, the siblings had agreed to be bound by the APDRA, which provides that, once a court enters an order “confirming, modifying, or correcting an award,” there is no further judicial review. It went on to note that, although the parties are permitted to expand the scope of this limited judicial review by agreement, the Marinaccio parties did not. The Appellate Division confirmed that there may be “rare circumstances” grounded in public policy considerations that would justify further appellate review, such as child support or custody issues, rulings in which a judge was biased or exceeded his or her authority, and attorney fees (which are within the exclusive supervision of the courts). It found, however, that issue of Marinaccio’s motion to vacate did not involve such “rare circumstances.”
Although the Appellate Division recognized that a counsel fee award is an exception to the APDRA’s bar against appellate review, it affirmed that fee award.
A copy of the January 4, 2012 opinion can be found here – Marinaccio v. Grgec
Tags: Arbitration · Enforcing Mediated Settlements · Mediation · New Cases
Tags: Blog Roundup and Highlights · Top Ten
In Bond v. Bond, the Appellate Division considered whether a non-custodial parent’s creation of a special needs trust (“SNT”) can justify the elimination of that parent’s obligation to pay child support. Although it concluded that the non-custodial parent “may utilize a special needs trust to take advantage of government programs to lessen the burden on the parent to provide support and medical assistance,” it went on to reason that the creation of such a trust would not justify the non-custodial parent’s concurrent application seeking to eliminate his obligation to pay child support.
Plaintiff Jonathan Bond and defendant Wendy Bond are the divorced parents of two sons, ages 23 and 20. The elder child, referred to as “A.B.” in the opinion, is autistic. The parties’ property settlement agreement (“PSA”) obligated the father to pay $50,000 per year in child support for each child, regardless of the mother’s income. The PSA noted that A.B. would likely never become emancipated, and that the father would pay his special education and similar expenses. It also set forth the parties’ agreement that each child should “attend and accomplish the highest level of schooling/education possible for that child.” After the divorce, A.B. was declared incapacitated, and Jonathan and Wendy Bond were appointed co-guardians of his person and property.
When A.B. turned 21, he enrolled in a residential facility for special needs young adults. Following A.B.’s enrollment, Jonathan Bond filed a motion seeking, inter alia, to establish an SNT for A.B. and eliminate the child support obligation; and to apportion A.B.’s expenses based upon the parties’ income and assets. Wendy Bond cross-moved to determine the parties’ financial contributions toward each of the sons’ expenses, and for an award of counsel fees. Although Wendy Bond did not oppose her ex-husband establishing an SNT for their son, she objected to the termination of child support.
By Order of December 15, 2009, Mr. Bond’s request to eliminate child support and establish the SNT was denied. He was also ordered to pay 99% of post-secondary educational costs of the parties’ non-disabled son, with the mother being responsible for 1% of those costs.
The trial court also concluded that the father had acted in bad faith, and awarded $27,397 in counsel fees to the mother.
By Order of March 17, 2010, a motion judge (who had not made the earlier rulings) directed Mr. Bond to pay $5,335 in counsel fees for failing to comply with the December 15, 2009 Order.
On appeal, the Appellate Division found it appropriate to review the parties’ finances. It found that, although Mr. Bond was claiming that his financial circumstances had declined in recent years, his 2008 gross earned income was $4,924,469. It found that he owns a $6 million home in New York City and a $3 million beach house in Bridgehampton. His net worth is reportedly over $8 million. Wendy Bond’s earned income in 2008 was $9,218, although her unearned income was $253,539 (apparently reflecting income earned from equitable distribution). She has a $1.9 million home in Short Hills. Her claimed expenses include contribution for A.B.’s extracurricular activities, medication, clothing and toiletries, and her frequent travels to and from his residential school, including hotels, meals, and activities with A.B. during her visits. She maintains a home for A.B.’s visits, and she pays for his vacations.
The Appellate Division noted that, although the application was advanced by the father as one for the establishment of an SNT, the trial court had “perceptively concluded that this was primarily an application to terminate child support,” and to require the parties to contribute toward the children’s living expenses based on their relative income and assets. It found that, although an SNT is a beneficial tool to allow funds to be invested in a manner that would not disqualify the beneficiary from governmental benefits, the parties had entered into the PSA fully recognizing A.B.’s future needs. It went on to find that Mr. Bond had failed to establish that his claimed decrease in income was permanent, or that A.B. would actually be eligible for public benefits if the SNT were established. It noted that, in the event that A.B.’s assets were depleted in the future, he would become eligible for public benefits at that point, and it denied Mr. Bond’s application:
In sum, we conclude that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any “changed circumstances” that would warrant a modification of the PSA …Ultimately, plaintiff’s motion was a self-serving effort to revise the terms of the PSA to make them more favorable to him.
With regard to the March 17, 2010 Order by the motion judge directing Mr. Bond to pay $5,335 in counsel fees for failing to comply with the prior Order, the appellate court remanded for a statement of reasons. As to the trial court’s other rulings, it affirmed.
A copy of the December 22, 2011 opinion in the Bond case is annexed here – Bond v. Bond
Tags: Child Support · Equitable Distribution · Family Law · Legal Rights of the Disabled · New Cases · Special Needs Planning · Special Needs Trusts
1. 2012 Maximum Pension Rates for VA Base Pension Plus Aid and Attendance Supplement
- Single Veteran – $1,703.00 Per Month or $20,447.00 Per Year
- Married Veteran – $2,019.00 Per Month or $24,239.00 Per Year
- Surviving Spouse – $1,094.00 Per Month or $13,138.00 Per Year
- Veteran Married to Veteran (Both A & A) – $2,631.00 Per Month or $31,578.00 Per Year
2. General Qualifications for Non-Service Connected VA Aid and Attendance Benefits
- Either Veteran, Widowed Spouse, and Dependent / Disabled Child May be a Claimant)
- Veterans Must Typically Have Served Ninety Days Active Duty with One Day During Wartime (Those Who Enlisted After September 7, 1980 Have a Different Time Frame)
- Veteran Cannot Have Had a Dishonorable Discharge
- Claimant’s Physician Must Declare Him/Her as in Need of Assistance from Another Individual, or in Need of a “Protective Environment” Which May Include Services Offered by Assisted Living
- Claimant Should have Limited Household Assets; Excluding Primary Home, Car, and Personal Belongings. If Assets are Jointly Owned by Other than Spouse, Only the Claimant’s Share is Generally Countable. In the Case of a Married Veteran, Both His/Her Assets are Countable. There is No Longer a Current Asset Cap, Per Se. The VA Now Considers the Claimant’s Life Expectancy in Determining how Much a Claimant can Have. In the Case of Assets Over $50k, It May be Best to Consult an Elder Law Attorney. One Should Never Transfer Assets without the Proper Legal/Professional Advice.
- Claimant’s Household Out-of-Pocket Yearly Medical Expenses Must Exceed or Come Close to His/Her Total Yearly Household Gross Income (Total Yearly Cost of Assisted Living is Typically Considered a Medical Expense)
- Surviving Spouse Must have been Married to the Veteran for at Least One Year OR have had Children by the Veteran if Married Less than One Year and Never Remarried (with Possibly One Very Rare Exception)
- Surviving Spouse Must have been Living with the Veteran Throughout the Marriage and at the Time of the Veteran’s Death unless the Separation was Due to Fault of the Veteran or Other Unavoidable Situation (There May Be Some Exceptions Related to Separations Due to Abuse)
- Minor or Disabled Adult Children May Qualify for Limited Benefits on Their Own
- Once Awarded Aid and Attendance or Housebound Status, a Veteran May Obtain Free Medications, Medical Equipment, Incontinence Supplies, Glasses, and Hearing Aides from the VA Hospital/Clinic via U.S. Mail. A Separate Application Must be Made Through the Health Care System.
* * Note: Each VA Claim is Unique and the Above Criteria is Generic in Nature and May Not be Applicable to Each Claimant. There are Never Any Guarantees that Any Claim or Specific Benefit Amount will be Awarded.
**Shared with the Permission of Veterans Information Services, Inc. and the Creators of VisPro: www.info4vets.com**
Tags: VA Pension Benefits · Veterans Benefits
