September 16, 2016
In Maryland, if one asks a Court to appoint a guardian for a person who is alleged to be disabled (the “alleged disabled person”) where such alleged disabled person is believed to be unable to manage his or her own affairs, the Court will appoint a lawyer to represent the alleged disabled person (the “court appointed counsel”). Sometimes, if there is a need to take immediate action to protect the alleged disabled person, the Court might, on the strength of a petition alone, appoint a temporary guardian for the alleged disabled person, which temporary guardian often is a lawyer chosen by the court.
In theory, the court appointed counsel and the temporary guardian are fiduciaries whose job it is to protect the interests of the alleged disabled person. Sometimes, however, it appears that such court appointed fiduciaries do not fulfill that responsibility.
Consider the following circumstance.
A health care facility is caring for Husband. Wife is unhappy with the facility’s treatment and wants husband to come home, and for the moment is withholding payment. Wife holds a financial power of attorney and a medical power of attorney for her husband, meaning that she has authority to manage his personal, medical, and financial affairs.
Rather than deal with Wife’s concerns head on, the health care facility petitions a court to have a guardian appointed for Husband, seeking the appointment of a guardian of the person to make medical decisions and a guardian of the property to manage financial affairs. Moreover, the health care facility requests in its petition that a temporary guardian immediately be appointed to pay the health care provider’s bill. The Court reads the petition and appoints a lawyer familiar to the court as temporary guardian.
Indeed, the health care facility requested that a specific lawyer be appointed temporary guardian, having first consulted with that lawyer to ensure that she was willing to serve as temporary guardian. Before the court decides whether to appoint a temporary guardian, however, that same lawyer who was proposed to serve as temporary guardian had a meeting with a new client. That new client was the Wife in the case at issue, and the lawyer advised Wife that she would represent Wife and resolve Wife’s problem with the guardianship petition for a five figure fee. Wife chose not to proceed with that lawyer. Without advising the court that she had met with Wife, which would cause a conflict of interest in the guardianship case and preclude the lawyer from being appointed temporary guardian, the lawyer was appointed temporary guardian for Husband.
In addition to appointing a temporary guardian, the court appointed another lawyer as court appointed counsel to represent the alleged disabled Husband. Without making any inquiries as to whether there was any mechanism, such as a power of attorney, that was less restrictive than a guardianship to manage Husband’s medical and financial affairs – which less restrictive means would, under the law, disallow a court from appointing a guardian – court appointed counsel notified the court, in her role as lawyer for Husband, that court appointed counsel would not challenge the petition to appoint a guardian of the person and the property.
With respect to both fiduciaries in this example, the temporary guardian and the court appointed counsel, each of which stood to collect court ordered fees from Husband’s assets if a guardian were to be appointed, it appears that the fox is guarding the hen house, to make reference to a well known folk tale.
While the example above may seem far fetched insofar as one might think that no court would appoint such fiduciaries, the example above is strikingly similar to a case I handled recently. Fortunately, the Wife in my real life case met with me in time to derail the injustice that would arise if a guardian of person and property were appointed in such a circumstance.
In my representation, I contacted the temporary guardian to point out her conflict of interest and persuaded her to refuse to accept the appointment as temporary guardian. I then made, on Wife’s behalf, a demand that the health care facility present the testimony of doctors to prove husband’s inability to manage his affairs (which fact, absent my demand, could be proven merely by submitting written statements asserting Husband’s disability). I also pointed out to both the lawyer for the health care facility and the court appointed counsel for Husband that there were less restrictive means to manage Husband’s assets thereby precluding a court from appointing a guardian.
Nevertheless, the health care facility was unwilling to withdraw its guardianship petition, and court appointed counsel appeared ready to go along with the court appointing a guardian for husband. On the day of the hearing, I appeared with Wife, ready to shoot down the petition for guardianship. When the case was called, the Judge stated that, based upon his reading of the documents filed in the case and because court appointed counsel was not challenging the guardianship, the judge would go ahead and appoint a guardian of the person and property.
At that point, I stood, prepared to address the court and to state Wife’s opposition to the court appointing a guardian for Husband, when, catching my eye, the lawyer for the health care facility quickly stood up and advised the court that the health care facility was withdrawing its petition.
If not for the timely intervention of the Gatesman Law Office in that case, a court would have appointed a guardian of the person and property for an individual for whom there was a less restrictive means to manage the assets (and likely would have made the temporary guardian the permanent guardian of the property). The court also would have ordered that the fees of court appointed counsel and the temporary guardian would be paid using Husband’s assets. That would be an unjust outcome, but it is an outcome that was prevented through our representation of Wife, who was an “interested person” who had standing to intervene in the case to protect Husband’s interests. Moreover, our representation of Wife was for a fee that was significantly less than the fee quoted by the lawyer who ultimately was appointed temporary guardian.
Some time later, the Gatesman Law Office received a notice that the health care facility would pay the fee of the lawyer appointed to represent the alleged disabled person.
William M. Gatesman stands ready to intervene to assist clients in preventing unjust outcomes in guardianship cases and other matters, even in the face of deeply entrenched special interests that might sometimes be seen as the fox guarding the hen house.
August 31, 2016
If one applies for Medicaid to pay for long term care in a nursing home, the state will look to see if the applicant made any gifts in the five years preceding the Medicaid application. If so, then (with some exceptions addressed in various articles on this website) a period of Medicaid ineligibility will be imposed.
For many years before 2014, the period of ineligibility was determined by dividing the amount of the gift by $6,800, which amount was supposed to be the average monthly cost of care in a nursing home. In July, 2014, that number was changed to $7,940. Medicaid has again updated the divisor to take into account Nursing Home care cost inflation.
Effective July 1, 2016, the divisor to determine the number of months of Medicaid ineligibility for gift transfers is $8,684, which means that one would be ineligible for one month for every $8,684 in gifts made during the five years preceding the Medicaid application.
Bear in mind that the term “gift” means any transfer of resources with respect to which the transferor did not receive full value. Thus, if a person sold her house for less than it’s fair market value (Medicaid uses assessed value or an appraisal to determine fair market value), then Medicaid will treat the difference between the sales price and the deemed fair market value to be a gift transfer even if such sale was made to a third party in a bona fide arms length transaction.
We at the Gatesman Law Office endeavor to stay at the cutting edge of new developments in Medicaid law and policy.
Should you have any questions as to how this new policy might affect you or a loved one, please contact us by clicking the Contact link on this website.
December 1, 2015
It is a well established principle of the Maryland Medicaid rules that certain jointly owned assets such as stocks or real property will not be counted as available resources to a nursing home resident who applies for Medicaid benefits if the other joint owner refuses to participate in a sale of the property.
For decades, such assets have been disclosed by nursing home residents on their Medicaid applications and such assets have been valued at zero for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility.
Recently, however, a Medicaid applicant was denied Medicaid coverage for nursing home care because the applicant owned stock, in certificate form, with her son in joint ownership, even though the son had refused to participate in a sale of the stock. Ordinarily, such a denial by a Medicaid caseworker would be overturned when the case was appealed to an Administrative Law Judge, but in this case, the Administrative Law Judge ignored the specific regulation in the Maryland Medicaid Manual that explicitly states that jointly owned stock should not be a countable asset where the joint owner refuses to sell.
Such denial has implications, not only for the particular individual whose Medicaid application was denied, but for Medicaid applicants statewide. Indeed, this case has been appealed to the Circuit Court of Maryland where a senior Assistant Attorney General, representing Maryland’s Medicaid authority, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, essentially has requested the Circuit Court to issue a decision that radically revises the long standing Medicaid policy concerning such jointly owned assets.
If the Circuit Court were to uphold the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this particular case, then it would shroud the process of dealing with jointly owned assets in a cloud of uncertainty. No longer would Medicaid applicants and their advisers be able to act with certainty regarding jointly owned assets, as there would exist the possibility that Medicaid caseworkers could arbitrarily ignore the applicable rule on the strength of judicial precedent.
This is not the proper way for the Medicaid authorities to change their policy. The proper way is to propose rule changes, either by changing the Code of Maryland Regulations, or by changing the Maryland Medicaid manual. Simply leaving a rule in place that exempts joint assets from consideration, but then attacking such an arrangement by imposing Medicaid ineligibility on a case-by-case basis on unsuspecting Medicaid applicants is bad public policy.
The State’s efforts to deny benefits in the case under discussion in this article is an example of such bad public policy.
William M. Gatesman is following the progress of this case closely and will inform the readers of this website of any new developments as they arise.
In the meantime, Mr. Gatesman stands ready to assist clients with prudent Medicaid eligibility and asset protection planning in the context of a changing landscape.
August 20, 2015
Mother dies with a will leaving all of her assets to her three children in equal shares. One of her adult daughters receives Medicaid benefits because her assets are less than $2,000 and she has a very low income due to a disability. Such daughter is expected to receive a distribution of $25,000 from mother’s estate. This will cause daughter to lose her public benefits, which will be disastrous for daughter given the very high costs of her medications.
While daughter could petition a court to create a special type of Supplemental Needs Trust, known as a “d4a trust” and once she receives the distribution from the estate, deposit the funds into such trust, there are significant costs to establishing such a d4a trust, and there are administrative burdens associated with such trust, including annual reporting to the State Medicaid authority. Moreover, a d4a trust requires payback to the state for any Medicaid benefits if there are funds remaining in the trust when the trust beneficiary dies. Given the amount to be distributed, one must weigh whether it is worth the cost of setting up a d4a trust if there are other less costly alternatives.
Fortunately, Maryland law provides an opportunity for a trust to be created in a simpler way. Under the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act, a trust may be established for a beneficiary, and the assets in the trust will not be considered to be available resources for Medicaid purposes. Moreover, unlike a d4a trust, there is no requirement to pay back Medicaid for benefits received during lifetime after the beneficiary dies.
While Mother in her will could have provided for a Maryland Discretionary Act trust for daughter, she failed to do so. Nevertheless, the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act provides that “any person having a right to transfer property to another person may create a trust as a transferor under [the Maryland Discretionary Trust Act].” Under this law, the term “person” includes any legal entity, and a probate estate is a legal entity.
William M. Gatesman presently is working with clients to come up with creative solutions to allow estate beneficiaries to retain their essential public benefits where the decedent’s will did not provide for asset protection in light of those public benefits. Establishing a Maryland Discretionary Trust Act trust is one of the tools in Mr. Gatesman’s tool kit to achieve the objective of protecting a beneficiary’s eligibility for public benefits.
August 6, 2015
Some workers who have received judgments in their favor from their former employers for work related disease or injury, such as asbestos related injuries or coal mining related diseases, find that the judgments are paid out over time, sometimes in the form of small amounts paid now and then over a period of many years. Some of these individuals have died and their probate estates have been wrapped up and closed. Then, out of the blue, another check arrives with a payment on the injury or disease settlement.
Once such check arrives, notice must be given to the Register of Wills in the county in which the estate had been opened, a supplemental inventory and account filed, and distribution made (with the payment of an additional probate fee in some circumstances). If a lawyer assists with this process, there will be legal fees as well. This is a cumbersome and costly endeavor, sometimes for a very small amount of money.
This continuous process of reopening the estate each time a settlement check arrives can be avoided with the proper assignment of future settlement payments to the beneficiaries of the estate when the final estate administration account is filed and the estate closed. Such assignment can grant the Personal Representative of the estate continuing authority to transact checks to make the distributions to the beneficiaries.
The Gatesman Law Office assists clients with the process of simplifying life for estate beneficiaries by arranging for the distribution of such settlement awards that might be received after an estate is closed without the necessity of continually filing supplemental inventories and accounts year after year.
October 27, 2012
The Maryland legislature once again has tinkered with the law governing powers of attorney in Maryland. That law includes Power of Attorney Forms, which if used, or if one’s power of attorney is “in substantially the same form” as one of the form documents, then the law bestows certain rights on the holder of the power of attorney, namely, the right to obtain payment of one’s legal fees from the person or institution who refuses to honor the power of attorney where a legal action is taken to compel acceptance. This right to legal fees differs from the general “American rule” of jurisprudence which holds that each litigant in a legal action must pay his own legal fees.
Unfortunately, the forms in the statute are generally not sufficiently comprehensive and lack certain important provisions.
Click here to read the rest of the story…
October 13, 2012
There are several new laws affecting probate in Maryland that became effective October 1, 2012. This article will address those statutory changes.
Click here to read the rest of the story…
May 24, 2012
Father, who had been enjoying late middle age, had a brain aneurysm and now is in a permanent coma. Unfortunately, he did not have a power of attorney or advance directive, so his adult son could not access his bank account, in which he had $20,000. He has no other assets. Father’s hospital and nursing home bills now exceed $300,000.
Son applied for Medicaid for his father but was denied benefits because Medicaid will not be allowed if Father has more than $2,500. Unfortunately, without a power of attorney, no one has the authority to spend the funds in Father’s bank account so that he can get Medicaid benefits.
Click here to read the rest of the story…
February 10, 2012
Mr. GoodSon is in a bind. His mother has been in a nursing home for over a year. He applied for Medicaid when mother first entered the facility, and although the Medicaid caseworker indicated to him that the application was fine, she ultimately denied the Medicaid application because mother had a few hundred dollars too much in her bank account. So GoodSon reapplied for Medicaid. This time, he could not get all the bank statements requested by the Medicaid caseworker from the bank. GoodSon again got the message not to worry about it, but in the end the Medicaid application was denied for failure to submit all the requested information
You’ve heard the old adage, “the third time is a charm”. So it was in this case, too. However, while the third Medicaid application was successful and Medicaid was granted, it was granted with a 6 month penalty period, or period of Medicaid ineligibility as a consequence of mother having made gifts to family members in the years prior to entering the nursing home.
By the time Medicaid started to pay, there was well over $100,000 in outstanding charges at the nursing home, and mother had no money to pay it. Mr. GoodSon is retired with only his house and barely adequate retirement savings. Nevertheless, the nursing home sued both mother and Mr. GoodSon. However, it is GoodSon who is at risk of losing everything — mother already is destitute.
To make matters worse, Mr. GoodSon did not seek my assistance until a few days before the court was to enter summary judgment — in other words, the nursing home was about to get a judgment against mother and Mr. GoodSon for the outstanding debt because Mr. GoodSon had been pursuing his legal defense without a lawyer.
We quickly ascertained that GoodSon had a number of defenses to the lawsuit, and we were able to defeat summary judgment notwithstanding the short time I had to do so. We next educated the lawyer for the nursing home about the reasons his client could not collect the entire outstanding balance from Mr. GoodSon. Indeed, Medicaid and nursing home collection law is highly complex. Having done so, we were able to persuade the nursing home to settle the matter for a fraction of the outstanding balance.
Fortunately for Mr. GoodSon, he sought out competent legal assistance not a moment too soon. Had he not done so, he could have suffered financial devastation.
While Mr. GoodSon and his mother are an extreme case, many people find themselves paying tens of thousands of dollars more than they have to by attempting to navigate the complex matter of paying for nursing home care without proper guidance.
Don’t let yourself fall into the trap that caught Mr. GoodSon — seek out competent counsel as soon as possible if you or a loved one will require nursing home care.
July 12, 2011
Some people require skilled care services even at a young age. For example, some people in their early 50’s with advanced Parkinson’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis find that the only way to afford needed services is to reside in a nursing home where Medical Assistance will cover the costs of care.
Unfortunately, while such people need intensive physical care, they often do not suffer from dementia and are decades younger than most other nursing home residents. Consequently, a nursing home would not to be the most appropriate care environment from a socialization point of view.
The good news is that in Maryland and other states, the Medicaid program sometimes will waive the requirement that one reside in a nursing home to obtain Medicaid benefits for long term care costs. These programs are known as Medicaid Waiver programs. However, there is a vast waiting list for the Medicaid Waiver program in Maryland, and it can take three or four years before one’s name rises to the top of the list.
Fortunately, there is a shortcut to the top of the Medicaid waiver waiting list. If an individual is receiving long term care in a nursing home and applies for and is awarded Medicaid, for which there is no waiting list, then, once Medicaid is established, such person could transfer to assisted living, or even return home and receive home care, and have the Medicaid dollars follow him out.
In other words, the Medicaid eligible nursing home resident can move to another care environment and immediately qualify for the Medicaid Waiver program, bypassing the waiting list altogether.
Thus, relatively young people who suffer from advanced debilitating disease may be able to obtain Medicaid dollars to cover the care costs in an appropriate care setting. However, such person may first have to undergo a less appropriate nursing home stay in order to secure such benefits.
The Gatesman Law Office assists clients in obtaining public benefits to cover essential and prohibitively expensive health care coverage which otherwise would be unavailable.
« Previous Entries