Legal Jobs - Chicago, IL

| By Paul Cherner

 
President Obama has nominated Jacqueline A. Berrien to be Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Berrien has been associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for the past five years. She previously worked for the Ford Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

 There appears to be a compromise gathering consensus concerning the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act (”EFCA”). See our prior post for a description of the key provisions of this proposed legislation. The compromise that’s emerging will be to drop the card check recognition provisions in favor of quick union elections (five to 10 days) to be conducted by the NLRB. Left in the bill for now are the provisons providing for arbitration of first time union contracts and increased penalties for unfair labor practices committed during organizing drives and/or first contract negotiations. It’s predicted that the Senate will probably not deal with this legislation until September at the earliest.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Within the past few days, leading media — the Philadelphia Inquirer and ABC News — published accounts about Pennsylvania’s filial responsibility law, drawing attention to the desperation caused in some families in the Commonwealth who are compelled to support their parents’ costly care needs despite their disconnection or their best efforts.

The Inquirer, from Philadelphia, published its article, “If mom can’t pay, adult child must”, by Monica Yant Kinne, on Sunday, July 12, 2009; and ABC News, from New York City, published its article, “Pay Your Parents’ Bills or Else — Little-Known State Laws Force Some to Pay Their Parents’ Nursing Home Bills” by Alice Gomstyn, on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.

The Inquirer article said the story of Don Grant, of Havertown, Pennsylvania, who was sued for care costs incurred by his mother:
This one’s going to blow baby boomers’ minds. It concerns a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania. The law can force adult children to pay their parents’ health-care costs. If Mom and Pop can’t pay, you pay. If they have the money but refuse to pay, you pay.

If you don’t, watch your credit rating sink under the weight of a legal judgment that will haunt you for life.

It happened to Don Grant. It can happen to you.

The Havertown man is nearly Fifty and struggling to pay his mortgage and $100,000 in student loans incurred by his daughter, a recent Albright College grad.

Last year, Grant was sued because his mother, Diana Fichera, did not pay an $8,000 bill at a Delaware County nursing home, where she rehabilitated after surgery.* * *
Don Grant’s mother was disassociated from him, and incurred substantial bills at care facilities. However, one care facility utilized Behave 43 (recodified in Pennsylvania law in 2005), as a legal ground to sue him as her responsible family member.

The ABC News article told the story of Andrea August, of Norristown, Pennsylvania, who was also sued for care costs incurred for her mother:
Could you be sued for your parents’ unpaid health care bills? It happened to Andrea August.

One spring day, the 39-year-old Pennsylvania woman was stunned to learn that a nursing home was suing her for more than $300,000 in unpaid bills related to her father, who died after spending about a year in the home, and her mother, a dementia patient still living there.

“I was devastated,” August said. “We’re living basically paycheck to paycheck. We don’t try to live beyond our means — it was just unbelievable that all of a sudden there was this debt hanging over us.”

August said that both she and her husband work two positions each to make ends meet for themselves and their 2 children. She loves her parents, she said, and did what she could to help ‘em. But footing their bills was out of the question.

“I don’t think anybody should be responsible for someone else’s bill,” she said. “You can only do so much.”

August found herself among a growing number of adult children facing legal pressure to pay their parents’ medical bills. * * *
Both articles deliver awesome reviews about the “filial support” concept, which derived from English law in the 1600s, was transported into Colonial laws, but fell into disfavor and disuse with the introduction of the federal Medicare and Medicaid systems in the mid-sixties.

Both articles note how the precarious financial situations of care facilities and the funding problems of the federal systems now lead providers to invoke those prior laws, particularly in Pennsylvania, due to the 2005 reenactment, which followed issuance of a Superior Court decision in Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Elder law attorneys have known about, and have opposed, the impact of Behave 43 since its reenactment in 2005 into Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4603 regarding “Relatives’ liability” (unofficial form) and its supporting Regulations (”Actions for Support”).

I noted the problems that a spotty enforcement of such a law could create for families, and provided further references. See: PA EE&F Law Blog post “Filial Support” in PA? Really?!? (07/28/08). See also: “Should you worry about your parents’ debts?” by Liz Pulliam Weston, posted on MSN Money; and “Paying for Mom: Little-Known Laws Force Families to Fund Parents’ Care” (01/10/09) by Beth Baker posted by the AARP Bulletin.

My post quoted Professor Katherine C. Pearson, who is the Director of the Elder and Consumer Protection Clinic, of Penn State - Dickinson School of Law, and who now is Chair of the Elder Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

She was quoted in both the Inquirer and ABC News articles, too.

Those articles appear just as federal health care insurance proposals air nationally. Such reform should take in account remaining state filial responsibility laws, and address, at minimum, the procedural rights that should be afforded to those being charged with care costs of family members.

However, until the situation of “filial responsibility” is clarified — particularly in Pennsylvania — anyone receiving an Behave 43 demand from a care facility regarding costs incurred by a family member must be vigilant. Never brush off such a demand, or else you run the risk of becoming the star of another article about filial responsibility.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Within the past few days, major media — the Philadelphia Inquirer and ABC News — published accounts about Pennsylvania’s filial responsibility law, drawing attention to the desperation caused in some families in the Commonwealth who are compelled to support their parents’ costly care needs despite their disconnection or their best efforts.

The Inquirer, from Philadelphia, published its article, “If mom can’t pay, adult child must”, by Monica Yant Kinne, on Sunday, July 12, 2009; and ABC News, from New York City, published its article, “Pay Your Parents’ Bills or Else — Little-Known State Laws Force Some to Pay Their Parents’ Nursing Home Bills” by Alice Gomstyn, on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.

The Inquirer article told the story of Don Grant, of Havertown, Pennsylvania, who was sued for care costs incurred by his mother:
This one’s going to blow baby boomers’ minds. It concerns a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania. The law can force adult children to pay their parents’ health-care costs. If Mom and Pop can’t pay, you pay. If they have the money but refuse to pay, you pay.

If you don’t, watch your credit rating sink under the weight of a legal judgment that will haunt you for life.

It happened to Don Grant. It can happen to you.

The Havertown guy is nearly Fifty and struggling to pay his mortgage and $100,000 in student loans incurred by his daughter, a recent Albright College grad.

Last year, Grant was sued because his mother, Diana Fichera, did not pay an $8,000 bill at a Delaware County nursing home, where she rehabilitated after surgery.* * *
Don Grant’s mother was disassociated from him, and incurred substantial bills at care facilities. However, one care facility utilized Behave 43 (recodified in Pennsylvania law in 2005), as a legal ground to sue him as her responsible family member.

The ABC News article told the story of Andrea August, of Norristown, Pennsylvania, who was also sued for care costs incurred for her mother:
Could you be sued for your parents’ unpaid health care bills? It happened to Andrea August.

One spring day, the 39-year-old Pennsylvania woman was stunned to learn that a nursing home was suing her for more than $300,000 in unpaid bills related to her father, who died after spending about a year in the home, and her mother, a dementia patient still living there.

“I was devastated,” August told. “We’re living basically paycheck to paycheck. We don’t try to live beyond our means — it was just unbelievable that all of a sudden there was this debt hanging over us.”

August said that both she and her husband work two jobs each to make ends meet for themselves and their 2 children. She loves her parents, she said, and did what she could to help them. But footing their bills was out of the question.

“I don’t think anybody should be responsible for someone else’s bill,” she told. “You can only do so much.”

August found herself among a growing number of adult children facing legal pressure to pay their parents’ medical bills. * * *
Both articles deliver excellent reviews about the “filial support” concept, which derived from English law in the 1600s, was transported into Colonial laws, but fell into disfavor and disuse with the introduction of the federal Medicare and Medicaid systems in the mid-sixties.

Both articles note how the precarious financial situations of care facilities and the funding problems of the federal systems now lead providers to invoke these prior laws, particularly in Pennsylvania, due to the 2005 reenactment, which followed issuance of a Superior Court decision in Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Elder law attorneys have known about, and have opposed, the impact of Act 43 since its reenactment in 2005 into Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4603 regarding “Relatives’ liability” (unofficial form) and its supporting Regulations (”Actions for Support”).

I noted the problems that a spotty enforcement of such a law could create for families, and provided further references. See: PA EE&F Law Blog post “Filial Support” in PA? Really?!? (07/28/08). See also: “Should you worry about your parents’ debts?” by Liz Pulliam Weston, posted on MSN Money; and “Paying for Mom: Little-Known Laws Force Families to Fund Parents’ Care” (01/10/09) by Beth Baker posted by the AARP Bulletin.

My post quoted Professor Katherine C. Pearson, who is the Director of the Elder and Consumer Protection Clinic, of Penn State - Dickinson School of Law, and who now is Chair of the Elder Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

She was quoted in both the Inquirer and ABC News articles, too.

These articles appear just as federal health care insurance proposals air nationally. Such reform should take in account remaining state filial responsibility laws, and address, at minimum, the procedural rights that should be afforded to those being charged with care costs of family members.

However, until the situation of “filial responsibility” is clarified — particularly in Pennsylvania — anyone receiving an Behave 43 demand from a care facility regarding costs incurred by a family member must be vigilant. Never brush off such a demand, or else you run the risk of becoming the star of another article about filial responsibility.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

 FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section about legal developments surrounding technology and the internet.

Lest you think the FTC is sitting back and letting rogue Internet Service Providers run wild in cyberspace, please consider the FTC’s recent shutdown of Pricewert LLC.

According to the FTC, Pricewert knowingly hosted and actively participated in the distribution of spam, child pornography, and other harmful electronic content.
Pricewert, as alleged by the FTC, was doing business under various names, including 3FN and APS Telecom, and actively recruited and colluded with criminals who sought to distribute child pornography, spyware, viruses, Trojan horses, phishing, botnet command and control servers, and pornography displaying violence, bestiality and incest.

The FTC asserted that Pricewert advertised its services “in the darkest corners of the Internet,” which included a forum for communications between criminals.

The FTC further alleged that Pricewert’s use of botnets (large computer networks that have been compromised and enslaved by a “bot herder” and that can be used for the sending of spam and the launching of denial of service attacks) included the control of more than 4,500 malicious software programs hosted by 3FN. This malware is asserted to have included programs capable of keystroke logging, password stealing, data stealing, programs with hidden backdoor remote control activity, and spam distribution programs.

The FTC filed a recent lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, California and charged that Pricewert’s distribution of illegal, malicious and harmful content and the deployment of botnets had compromised thousands of computers already and had caused substantial injuries to consumers.

The FTC promptly moved for a temporary restraining order, which was granted by the court. As a result, Pricewert’s alleged illegal activities are prohibited, at least for now, and its upstream Internet providers and data centers are required to cease providing services to Pricewert. Moreover, Pricewert’s assets have been frozen.

The case is not over, and Pricewert will have a chance to fully provide its factual version of events in support of its defense. But this case should serve as notice that the FTC can and will flex its muscles when it believes that serious wrongdoing is occurring in cyberspace.

Eric Sinrod is a senior partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Website is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

The Family and Medical Leave Act (”FMLA”) was amended last year to provide for 2 new forms of leave for eligible employees who have a family member on active duty in the armed forces. These amendments afford eligible employees the opportunity to take “military caregiver leave” to care for covered service members. The other form of leave provided is “qualifying exigency leave” for any qualifying event that arises from a family member being called to active duty or receiving notice of an impending call to active duty status.

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued detailed regulations implementing these two new forms of leave for employers with 50 or more employees. Employers are required to update their FMLA policies, post revised FMLA notices and provide for those two new additional forms of leave for their eligible employees. For an indepth discussion of those new forms of leaves, see this author’s article “Leave for Military Family Members - What Employers Need to Know” in this week’s online version of Crain’s Workforce Management and the December 10, 2008 post in this blog..

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment lawyer in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

By Eric Sinrod

Google’s Street View panoramic photo mapping service allows users to see street level photographs of specific locations, to take virtual walks while panning, rotating and zooming through cities around the world, and to discover shops, restaurants, parks, hotels and other spots in given geographic locations. Good, right?

Well, not so fast. According to a recent New York Times article, a German data protection official has just threatened Google with “unspecified sanctions” if Google does not conform its Street View service to comply with strict German privacy laws (on the supposed assumption that Google is not presently in compliance).

Google and Germany reportedly are in disagreement with respect to 12 different points relating to Street View. German law is reported to prohibit the distribution of photographs of persons or their property without express consent.

The heart of the controversy involves photographs of houses and private property without permission and the handling of recorded data that later is removed from Street View subsequent to property owner complaints, according to the article.

Data protection administrators from a number of German states reportedly have objected to Google’s Street View service. Indeed, the article states that in the city of Kiel, residents put stickers on their front doors last year telling Google not to film their property.

Since 2008, Google reportedly has been putting together a photographic inventory of German streets for Street View, which has been available in various countries, but has not yet been launched in Germany.

The article indicates that Google is willing to allow Germans the right to opt out online of Street View filming, and they can seek to have Street View remove pictures of their property that have been posted.

So, where is the privacy line when it comes to photographs of the real property?

On the one hand, a building on a street often is in public view, and arguably is not terribly private. On the other hand, it’s one thing for a finite number of people to be able to view the building as they might see it from the street, but it’s another matter for people from all over the world to see that building online.

Also, while “opt-out” generally is the privacy regime in the United States (meaning that people got to opt-out affirmatively to prevent the sharing of their private information), in Europe, opt-in is the rule (meaning that consent must be obtained up-front before intimate information can be made available). Thus, what might fly in the US, might not go over so well in the European Union.

No matter what happens with respect to this particular dispute, there is no question that the world is becoming a much smaller place.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

By Eric Sinrod

Google’s Street View panoramic photo mapping service allows users to see street level photographs of specific locations, to take virtual walks while panning, rotating and zooming through cities around the world, and to find shops, restaurants, parks, hotels and other spots in given geographic locations. Nice, right?

Well, not so fast. According to a recent New York Times article, a German data protection official has just threatened Google with “unspecified sanctions” if Google does not conform its Street View service to comply with strict German privacy laws (on the supposed assumption that Google is not presently in compliance).

Google and Germany reportedly are in disagreement with respect to 12 different points relating to Street View. German law is reported to prohibit the distribution of photographs of persons or their property without express consent.

The heart of the controversy involves photographs of houses and intimate property without permission and the handling of recorded data that later is removed from Street View subsequent to property owner complaints, according to the article.

Data protection administrators from a number of German states reportedly have objected to Google’s Street View service. Indeed, the article states that in the city of Kiel, residents put stickers on their front doors last year telling Google not to film their property.

Since 2008, Google reportedly has been putting together a photographic inventory of German streets for Street View, which has been available in various countries, but has not yet been launched in Germany.

The article indicates that Google is willing to allow Germans the right to opt out online of Street View filming, and they can seek to have Street View remove pictures of their property that have been posted.

So, where is the privacy line when it comes to photographs of the real property?

On the one hand, a building on a street often is in public view, and arguably is not terribly private. On the other hand, it is one thing for a finite number of people to be able to view the building as they might see it from the street, but it is another matter for people from all over the world to see that building online.

Also, while “opt-out” generally is the privacy regime in the United States (meaning that people have to opt-out affirmatively to prevent the sharing of their intimate information), in Europe, opt-in is the rule (meaning that consent must be obtained up-front before private information can be made available). Thus, what might fly in the US, might not go over so well in the European Union.

No matter what happens with respect to this particular dispute, there is no question that the world is becoming a much smaller place.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

 

By Paul Cherner

 

President Obama has announced his intention to nominate two union attorneys to be Board members of the NLRB.  They’re Craig Becker and Mark G. Pearce.

 

Becker has been Associate General Counsel for the Service Employees International Union for 17 years and holds the same job at the AFL-CIO.  He has practiced and taught labor law for 27 years.

 

Pearce practices labor law at a law firm in Buffalo, NY that represents unions and individual employees.  He previously taught labor law and began his career at the NLRB.

 

The NLRB has a total of five Board Members.  Traditionally, the President appoints three Members from his party to the staggered terms of the NLRB and designates one of them to be Chairman.  The 2 other Board Members are traditionally from the opposition party.  At the present time, there are 2 Board Members serving on the NLRB who were appointed during the prior administration- Chairman Liebman (D) and Member Schaumber (R).   If these 2 new appointments by President Obama are confirmed by the Senate,  there will be a Democratic majority for the first time in many years.

 

 

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved

On Friday, May 1, 2009, Katherine Pearson (Professor of Law, Penn State Dickinson School of Law), as Chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Elder Law Section, sent an email message alerting section members that, “[a]s part of a plan to implement Governor Rendell’s proposed budget for the Commonwealth, legislation was introduced on April 28 that would significantly affect Medical Assistance (MA) Estate Recovery.”

This legislative proposal would create far-reaching changes in the law — not only for Medicaid recovery, but also for estate planning, real estate ownership & transfer, creditors’ rights & lien priority, and fiduciary liability in estate & trust administrations. I hope that it’s not reviewed lightly or superficially given these potential effects.

With her permission, I repost her alert.
In the key bill, House Bill 1351, at Section 1412 [See: Footnote 1, below], the proposal expands the ability of the Commonwealth to seek reimbursement of MA monies paid to/for a person 55 or older by giving the Commonwealth the right to make a claim against all real property, personal property and other assets in the deceased’s probate estate, including any such property in which the deceased had “any legal title or interest at the time of death . . . including such assets conveyed to a survivor, heir, or assign of the deceased individual through joint tenancy, tenancy by the entireties, tenancy in common, survivorship, life estate, living trust or other arrangement.

Section 1412 further creates a lien on the property, that follows the property into any surviving party’s hands, and establishes the Commonwealth’s priority rights of repayment, with the potential for penalties on executors or administrators who fail to protect the lien.

Section 1412, subsection 10, seeks to restrict attorneys fees payable from an estate that’s subject to the Commonwealth’s lien.

HB 1351 also has provisions that affect calculations of eligibility for Medical Assistance because of payment of prior or “other” medical expenses, and that create new definitions.

This bill is likely to come to the floor of both houses very soon as part of the Governor’s Omnibus Budget proposal, and will certainly be voted on before the end of the session, June 30.
* * *
Footnote 1:

This is the language of Sections 1412 and 1417 of the bill (HB 1351):

Section 1412. Repayment from Estates.—

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or any other law, the department shall establish and implement an estate recovery program to recover medical assistance paid with respect to individuals who were fifty-five years of age or older at the time that assistance was received. Under this program, the department shall recover from the estate of an individual the amount of medical assistance paid for all services provided to the individual. For purposes of this section, an individual’s estate shall include all of the following:

(1) All real and personal property and other assets subject to inclusion within the deceased individual’s estate under 20 Pa.C.S. (relating to decedents, estates and fiduciaries).

(2) Any other real and personal property and other assets in which the deceased individual had any legal title or interest at the time of death, to the extent of such interest, including such assets conveyed to a survivor, heir, or assign, of the deceased individual through joint tenancy, tenancy by the entireties, tenancy in common, survivorship, life estate, living trust or other arrangement.

(a.1) Liability for debt shall be as follows:

(1) If property subject to the department’s claim is transferred without the department’s claim being satisfied, then the executor or administrator transferring such property, if there is one, shall become liable to pay the department’s claim.

(2) If property subject to the department’s claim is transferred to the extent that the transfer is made without priceless and adequate consideration in money or something worth money at the time of the transfer and without the department’s claim being satisfied, then the executor or administrator transferring such property, if there is one, and the person receiving such property shall become liable to pay the department’s claim.

(3) If property subject to the department’s claim is held by a person, including a cotenant, remainderman, or trustee, then the person holding such property is liable to pay the department’s claim.

(b) The executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent who attained fifty-five years of age shall ascertain whether the decedent received medical assistance during the five years preceding death and, if so, shall give notice to the department to secure from the department a statement of the department’s claim for medical assistance consistent with Twenty Pa.C.S. § 3392(3) and (6) (relating to classification and order of payment). The department must submit its claim to the executor or administrator within forty-five days of receipt of notice or the claim shall be forfeited.

(c) This section shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of section 447.

(d) The department may administratively assess liability under this section. Any final order of the department determining liability under this section:

(1) Shall be a lien on the real and personal property of the individual in the manner provided by section 1401 of the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.343, No.176), known as “The Fiscal Code.”

(2) May be entered by the department in the manner provided by section 1404 of “The Fiscal Code.”

(3) Shall continue and retain priority in the manner provided in section 1404.1 of “The Fiscal Code.”

Note that the legislation places personal liability on any person, including a trustee, holding any interest that the Department of Welfare determines is subject to estate recovery. “If property subject to the department’s claim is held by a person, including a cotenant, remainderman, or trustee, then the person holding such property is liable to pay the department’s claim.” Under the legislation this liability is set by the Department of Public Welfare administratively rather than by a court. This could allow the Department to effectively limit the payment of personal representative, trustee, and lawyers fees payable from a decedent’s estate or trust.

Another section of the Bill also attempts to limit lawyers fees.

Section 1417. Limit on claim reduction.

In any action, claim, or settlement where the department is required to reduce its claim, on account of lawyer fees incurred by a recipient in obtaining a recovery of cash or medical assistance for the department, the reduction shall not exceed twenty-five % of the department’s recovery.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works every day in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

Article courtesy of  Nancy Grimes - Founder GLI / Grimes Legal, Inc. - Legal Search Firm
    Retained Legal Recruiters © Copyright 2008 Grimes Legal, Inc. | All rights reserved