Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Judge grants Casey Moreland’s request to go see ill mother in Indiana

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – A judge has granted Casey Moreland’s request to go out of state to see his elderly and ill mother who is in hospice care in Indiana.

According to the filing, Moreland, who remains under house arrest per the conditions of his release from custody, will visit with his mom at her Indiana home on Friday and Saturday of this week.

The document states he will leave with his wife and sister on Friday morning and return back to Nashville on Saturday.

While in Indiana, Moreland will stay at his mother’s home.

The former Nashville judge was indicted last Tuesday by a federal grand jury on five counts of obstruction of justice. He’s accused of taking steps to obstruct and interfere with an FBI investigation by devising a scheme to pay a material witness to take back her previous statements.

Moreland has since pleaded not guilty to those federal charges.

Full Article & Source:
Judge grants Casey Moreland’s request to go see ill mother in Indiana

See Also:
Casey Moreland to take leave from bench

Judge dismissed tickets, fines for female friend

Metro General Sessions Judge Casey Moreland resigns as presiding judge

Ethics Complaint Levels Charges Against Two Judges, Lewis

Investigation underway into inmate/deputy relationship in judge’s court

Nashville judge faces federal criminal charges

Many seniors who qualify for home-based care under Medicare aren’t receiving it. Why?


One of the greatest gaps in Medicare coverage is that it does not help to pay for home-based care unless such care is requested by a physician as medically necessary. Medicaid will cover such long-term custodial care for people with little to no income or assets. But Medicaid covers fewer than one in five of the roughly 55 million people on Medicare, leaving the rest to fend for themselves or, for a small group of mostly better-off folks, purchase private long-term care insurance.

Now, it appears that even Medicare’s limited home-based coverage benefits for those with medical needs are also not possible for many people. The nonprofit Center for Medicare Advocacy says it been researching the availability of Medicare-covered home-based care in response to a worrisome and growing volume of complaints from Medicare enrollees that they are being denied home-based care even though they are qualified to receive it and it is covered by Medicare.

Like nearly everything about Medicare, this is a complex topic. But it appears that Medicare is not keen to encourage use of allowable home care benefits. Home care providers don’t much like this benefit either. They don’t make much money on it, and under new Medicare rules, they can actually lose money providing such care.

Let’s begin with the benefit itself. According to the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Medicare will pay for up to 35 hours a week of home-based care — provided by nursing and home health aids — to people who are housebound and for whom such care is prescribed as medically necessary by their doctor or another authorized caregiver. The home health benefit also includes physical, occupational or speech-language therapy.

READ MORE: Does Medicare pay for a home health care provider?

Skilled nursing care is covered on an “intermittent” and “part-time” basis and also for home-based medical social services and for home health aides, who are allowed to perform certain personal services that stem from the patient’s underlying medical needs, but which are not the same as custodial care, which is not covered by Medicare.

These last two coverage categories, while part of Medicare’s benefits, merit only a footnote on the Medicare website. And when Medicare updated its home health care brochure last March, it was full of errors about the nature of available coverage, according to Center for Medicare Advocacy associate director Kathleen Holt.

Holt says the allowable benefits are thus broader than people realize. However, she adds, it looks like it doesn’t matter what’s actually covered, because home health agencies routinely decline to provide even the skimpier services that Medicare publicizes to Medicare enrollees who request them.

Significantly, Medicare will only pay insurance claims to home health agencies who are registered and approved by Medicare. Ostensibly to help consumers, it has developed an extensive quality rating system, so consumers can find the most qualified agency. However, there apparently is no requirement that an agency actually provide home health services when Medicare enrollees request them.

The reasons why these agencies turn away business, Holt claims, stem partly from Medicare’s increasing emphasis on paying for health care that actually helps patients get better. This is an admirable goal, but what it means is that home health agencies are rewarded for treating patients who are likely to get better.

Supporting care that cures people, while understandable, is not a requirement Medicare insists on for covering most health care. Therapy that maintains a person’s ability to function, or even that slows the pace of decline, is a perfectly good goal for treatment and one that many older Americans and their families embrace.

However, Medicare and Congress have supported the shift from fee-for-service health care to fee-for-results care. In this situation, home health agencies face a carrot-and-stick financial incentive system based on measurable patient improvement. That’s all fine and dandy, but what this means is that agencies are effectively discouraged from treating people with long-term chronic conditions who may be qualified for services, but are unlikely to get better.  (Click to Continue)

Full Article & Source:
Many seniors who qualify for home-based care under Medicare aren’t receiving it. Why?

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Man's guardian says Kensington Place nursing home failed to address risk of falls


CHICAGO — A guardian is suing Kensington Place Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, citing alleged insufficient measures were taken to prevent injuries and negligence.

Tim Jones, as plenary guardian for Donnie Jones, filed a complaint on April 26 in Cook County Circuit Court against the defendant alleging Donnie Jones suffered injuries from a fall, including an acute left subdural hemorrhage which required emergency surgery, causing the deterioration of his overall health. The plaintiff holds Kensington Place responsible because the facility allegedly failed to provide adequate medical assistance and supervision to address Donnie Jones' risk of falling.

The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant in an amount greater than $50,000 plus court costs. He is represented by Ashley Hadler Herschberger and Jacob D. Radecki of Levin & Perconti in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court Case number 2017L004233

Full Article & Source:
Man's guardian says Kensington Place nursing home failed to address risk of falls

The Not-So-Surprising Unannounced Nursing Home Inspection

An ongoing problem that nursing home residents, their families, and consumers have expressed for years is the belief that facilities are “overly prepared” for routine annual inspections[1].

Their complaints generally sound something like this:

“Over the past several months, this nursing home has had a lot of problems answering call lights, has served food that’s, at best, barely palatable; has neglected to hire enough staff to cover the evening and weekend shifts; and has this permeating stench of urine and feces.  But, then, out of the blue one day, there’s extra staff walking the hallways, many people of whom we have never seen before; the food goes from deplorable to tasty; call lights are responded to in minutes, not hours; and the aroma smells of flowers and fresh baked bread.”

Residents, families, and advocates have repeatedly claimed that the underlying reason for this sudden and short-lived change from bad to good nursing home quality is the nursing home’s apparent awareness of the not-so-surprising, unannounced inspection–“that the state is coming in soon for their survey.”

And more often than not, they’re right.  The timing seems to be uncanny.

Unfortunately for the residents, once the inspectors leave, the daily awfulness returns, leaving residents and families scratching their heads, frustrated by what appears to be a compromised inspection process.

While much of the evidence about their claim has historically been anecdotal, a closer look at the inspection histories of the nursing homes most recently added to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Special Focus Facility list gives credence to their argument.

Of the nine nursing homes added to the list this month, more than two-thirds of the cited severe deficiencies in those homes were discovered during random complaint investigations[2] (see graph below).
The sample data shows when inspections are untethered from restrictive timeframes and occur randomly, a nursing home’s ability to undertake advanced preparations for the surveyor’s visit is diminished–yielding more serious problems that need immediate attention.  And when this happens, surveyors are more apt to pinpoint those problems so they can can quickly negotiate a prompt remedy before violations become catastrophic for residents.

Fortunately, federal and state officials are aware of this overall concern and have taken some steps to enhance the integrity of the inspection process by, for example, coordinating a percentage of annual surveys during non-regular business hours and by standardizing additional family interviews during their surveys.

Source:
The Not-So-Surprising Unannounced Nursing Home Inspection

Summit County Probate Court helping developmentally disabled children transition to adulthood with new video

AKRON, Ohio -- Summit County Probate Court released a new video titled "Guardianship: As your Special Needs Child Becomes An Adult," to help parents of developmentally disabled children make decisions about their child's transition into adulthood.

The video is meant to inform, address issues and answer questions parents may have as their children approach age 18.

The 39-minute-long video can be viewed through the Probate Court's website at or at https://vimeo.com/215861018.

"I recognize that it can be a difficult decision to journey on the path from parent to legal guardian," Probate Court Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer said in a news release. "This video acknowledges this reality and provides an important piece in our overall effort to protect our wards and to support their guardians."


The video shows parents Fiovi, who talks about her son Nicholas, and Mary, who discusses her experience becoming the legal guardian of her son Scott. 

They each speak with Stormer, who guides them through the process of making a decision in the best interest of their children.

The video can be used in tandem with a video previously released by the Probate Court titled "Guardianship of Persons With Developmental Disabilities." The videos together provide information to support caregivers and loved ones of children with special needs.

Guardian training is mandated by the Ohio Supreme Court. Summit County Probate Court created the first comprehensive video training in Ohio.

There are 18 videos available for online viewing through the Probate Court's website that cover issues ranging from advanced directives to marriage licenses. They can be viewed at www.summitohioprobate.com.

Full Article & Source:
Summit County Probate Court helping developmentally disabled children transition to adulthood with new video

Monday, May 8, 2017

Milton attorney reprimanded for charging exorbitant fees

The Florida Supreme Court has ordered that Milton attorney Jennifer Byrom be publicly reprimanded after it found the attorney charged excessive fees for a 10-year-long probate case.

The matter began in 1998 when Byrom’s future client, a widow, consulted her on her husband’s estate, requesting assistance with handling the $1.5 million estate. In July 1998, Byrom took guardianship, but she did not extend guardianship to the widow in petitions filed with the courts.

It was at this time when the attorney began to charge exorbitant hourly rates. According to court documents, Byrom charged between $60 and $85 per hour for any work performed by her staff and between $180 and $250 per hour for work she completed done. She charged the widow for both guardianship and legal services, even though she was only entitled to charge for performing the latter.

Additionally, Byrom charged incidentals to the account such as her food and travel expenses. All of her expenses were approved by the courts.

After 10.5 years of service, the widow’s daughter filed for and was granted guardianship, but Byrom had already racked up charges totaling $400,000 during her time as guardian.

After reviewing the facts of the case, including the court approvals and signatures from the widow and her children approving the activities charged, the Supreme Court determined that discipline was warranted. Byrom will to be publicly reprimanded in the Referee and will be required to take 15 hours of continuing legal education in guardianship and 15 hours in guardianship, probate and/or estate planning.

The family law attorney was admitted to the Florida State Bar in 1985 and is a graduate of the Samford University Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. She had no prior record of discipline in the state.

Full Article & Source:
Milton attorney reprimanded for charging exorbitant fees

Deputies searching for woman accused of exploiting elderly person

Christy Lynn Parks
The Bibb County Sheriff’s Office is casting an online drag net for a 39-year-old woman accused of preying on a senior citizen.

Christy Lynn Parks is wanted for burglary in the second degree, forgery and exploitation of an elderly person, according to a post on the sheriff’s office facebook page.

Parks, who is about 5 feet 1 and 120 pounds, could be driving a black GMC Yukon.

Anyone with information is urged to call Investigator Kenneth Hester at 478-951-7659 or the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office at 478-751-7500.

Full Article & Source:
Deputies searching for woman accused of exploiting elderly person

Man who scammed Volusia County elderly residents arrested, deputies say


VOLUSIA COUNTY, Fla. - A man who is accused of targeting senior victims and overcharging them for construction costs has been arrested, Volusia County deputies said.

Gary Mitchell, 29, was arrested Thursday in Broward County and taken to the Volusia County Jail.

Deputies said Mitchell specifically targets older residents.

Mitchell is accused of going to a 90-year-old DeBary woman’s home and telling her that she needed her driveway resurfaced, deputies said.

The woman initially declined, but later let the man fix her driveway for $3,000, investigators said.

The woman told deputies that she thought that was too much, but did it anyway. She said she tried to have the bank cancel the check, but Mitchell had already cashed the check, investigators said.

Detectives later learned that Mitchell didn’t resurface the woman’s driveway, but painted over it with a watered-down concrete mix, deputies said.

Deputies said Mitchell also tried to get $3,200 from an 88-year-old DeBary man for work on his driveway, but, accepted $40 after the man complained to Mitchell that the price was too high.

Mitchell was previously convicted in Arizona of financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult, deputies said.

Mitchell is charged with elderly exploitation and scheme to defraud.

He’s being held on $50,000 bail.

Full Article & Source:
Man who scammed Volusia County elderly residents arrested, deputies say

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Judicial Discipline Among Highlights of Harrisburg Arguments

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to convene in Harrisburg on Tuesday and Wednesday to hear argument on a variety of issues, including right to counsel during psychological exams, the role of stare decisis in judicial discipline cases and the statute of limitations in underinsured motorist cases.

Right to Counsel


One of the first cases the court will hear is an appeal from a March 2016 Superior Court ruling that a litigant does not have an absolute right to the presence of counsel during an independent psychological evaluation.

In a March 9 opinion in Shearer v. Hafer, a unanimous three-judge panel of the court held in an apparent issue of first impression that Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure allow a trial court to issue protective orders expressly prohibiting the presence of third-party observers during the standardized portion of an evaluation. The psychologist conducting the evaluation at issue had said counsel's presence could threaten the validity of data gathered during the test.

The decision affirmed a ruling of the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Scott Hafer and Paulette Ford's motion for a protective order in a case involving a car accident.

Judicial Discipline


The court will also hear argument in the disciplinary cases of two suspended Philadelphia judges who were removed from office for ethics violations.

The question before the justices is whether, when imposing sanctions on a judge, the Court of Judicial Discipline is bound to follow the doctrine of stare decisis, requiring it to follow its prior decisions.
In separate sanctions rulings issued Dec. 16, the CJD removed both judges from the bench and barred them from holding public office in the future.

Both judges have already appealed the sanctions rulings to the state Supreme Court.

The decisions came after Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angeles Roca and Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge Dawn Segal were found earlier this year to have violated the state constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in ex parte contact with former Municipal Court Judge Joseph C. Waters Jr., who was later charged criminally and sentenced to 24 months in prison for fixing cases of political donors.

UM Arbitration Preservation


Is an unopposed demand for arbitration enough to toll the statute of limitations for bringing an uninsured motorist claim that is subject to mandatory arbitration, or does an arbitration petition need to be filed with a court?

That is the question the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is set to consider. Both sides said they are looking forward to a clear rule from the Supreme Court on the issue.

In late December 2016, the justices took up an appeal in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol. The court specifically agreed to hear arguments about whether the statute of limitations in uninsured motorist claims subject to mandatory arbitration is "tolled only by the commencement of an official judicial action, or may extrajudicial actions also toll the statute of limitations."

A three-judge panel of the state Superior Court in May 2016 ruled that the statute of limitations on an uninsured motorist claim had not been tolled despite the parties corresponding about the mandatory arbitration and even selecting arbitrators. The decision upheld a ruling from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which had granted summary judgment for the insurance carrier.

Full Article & Source:
Judicial Discipline Among Highlights of Harrisburg Arguments