Debt Collectors Take Places Alongside Hospital Staffs – NYTimes.com

Read entire article by Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

Hospital patients waiting in an emergency room or convalescing after surgery are being confronted by an unexpected visitor: a debt collector at bedside.

This and other aggressive tactics by one of the nation’s largest collectors of medical debts, Accretive Health, were revealed on Tuesday by theMinnesota attorney general, raising concerns that such practices have become common at hospitals across the country.


***
To achieve promised savings, hospitals turn over the management of their front-line staffing — like patient registration and scheduling — and their back-office collection activities.
***
Employees were told to stall patients entering the emergency room until they had agreed to pay a previous balance, according to the documents. Employees in the emergency room, for example, were told to ask incoming patients first for a credit card payment. If that failed, employees were told to say, “If you have your checkbook in your car I will be happy to wait for you,” internal documents show.
***

Related articles

JURIST – Forum: Medicaid in the Supreme Court: Small Errors, Big Problems

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Me...Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Medicaid administrator) logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read entire opinion post by Prof. Nicole Huberfeld.

JURIST Guest Columnist Nicole Huberfeld of theUniversity of Kentucky College of Law says that the oral arguments made before the Supreme Court regarding the Medicaid expansion of health care reform evidence a troubling lack of understanding of the Court’s prior decisions in this area…
***

Medicaid was also mischaracterized and flubbed in several ways. A few examples: Clement repeatedly minimized Medicaid as covering the “visually impaired and disabled,” when these are just two of the categories of “deserving poor” that have historically been covered (also included are pregnant women, children, parents and the elderly). Clement asserted that not all states cover prescription drugs when in fact all states opt to cover some prescription drugs. Clement also mischaracterized the limited coverage of the Medicaid program, claiming it was intended to protect the states. Medicaid was limited because Congress adopted antiquated ideas regarding which impoverished citizens deserve public help (a concept dating to theElizabethan Poor Laws). States’ rights have been a factor in Medicaid but are reflected in options and waivers, which expand rather than limit the program (and contribute greatly to its cost).

***

Any of these gaffes, taken individually, seems small. Taken in the aggregate, it is hard to see how the Court can get the question of coercion right when so much discussed at the Court was wrong. To invalidate not only the Medicaid expansion, which finally will include all of the nation’s poor in our safety net, but also all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as the states ask) based upon so many mistakes could be the worst blunder of all.

Related articles

NY Appellate Court Explains Evidentiary Burdens Required for Type 1 Actions under SEQRA Where Town Adopts New Zoning Laws to Ensure Participation in National Flood Insurance Program « LAW OF THE LAND

Read entire post by Prof. Salkin at her “Law of the Land” Blog.

***
Amendments of zoning ordinances are Type 1 actions under SEQRA and require evaluation of their environmental impact. If the lead agency determines that environmental impact of the action would be insignificant, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required and the Town may issue a negative declaration. Once a negative declaration is issued, a Court may only overturn it where they find that it is arbitrary, capricious or not supported by the evidence.
***

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz, 513099, 2012 WL 652798 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 3/1/2012)

This opinion can be accessed at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01538.htm

Trove of Unsealed Court Documents Capture Kelley Drye Partner’s Push to Get Paid After Age 70

Read entire article in AmLaw Daily

posted by
Sara Randazzo

(Editor’s Note:  These documents provide a fascinating glimpse at how the “other half” work.  I suppose these days, we’d have to call them “the 1%”.  Just something to think about while the rest of us ponder what type of cat food we’ll be able to enjoy in our “retirement” years.)

***

Chronologically, the 83 pages of filings–which the judge overseeing the EEOC litigation ordered Kelley Drye to make public on March 2 over the firm’s objections–begin with two letters from D’Ablemont clients expressing dismay that he will no longer be allowed to take the lead on their matters.

“While I understand your firm’s position on partner advancement, it creates a rather difficult situation for our company as we move forward,” says a letter (PDF) dated February 1, 2000, with the writer’s name redacted. “We have remained a Kelley Drye client largely in part to your personal involvement in the growth of our company from 1970 to the present day.”

 

***

 

How much did a Kelley Drye life partner earn? At the time the dispute was unfolding, according to excerpts of a Kelley Drye partnership agreement (PDF) made public Monday, attorneys who had achieved that status received a fixed annual income based on their average earnings in their three peak-earning years as equity partners. (The same agreement shows the firm protecting itself against becoming over committed to retired partners by capping life partner salaries at 4 percent of the firm’s partnership earnings in a given fiscal year and requiring that any individual life partner cannot be paid more than half the average partner earnings for the year.)

***

In a March 2000 letter (PDF), D’Ablemont asks that the firm increase the client development funds available to him from $10,000 to $20,000. He needs the money, he writes, to maintain his membership at theWestchester Country Club ($6,800 a year), The Metropolitan Club($1,900) and the club at Seabrook Island ($1,000).

***

Jumping ahead, the next letter (PDF) contained in the unsealed documents that management sent to D’Ablemont is dated July 2008. It involves a separate dispute between the two sides–whether or not legal services provided to D’Ablemont’s family should be paid for by the firm.

***

Related articles

Baum Firm Reaches Settlement With Attorney General-NYLJ

Read entire NYLJ article by Andrew Keshner.

Steven J. Baum, who led what was once New York’s largest foreclosure firm before it closed its doors last year, has agreed not to handle foreclosure cases for lenders and servicers for two years under a settlement agreement with the New York Attorney General‘s Office.

Mr. Baum, his managing partner Brian Kumiega, the Baum firm and Pillar Processing will also pay $4 million under the deal.

According to the attorney general’s office, between 2007 and 2010, the Baum Firm filed over 100,000 foreclosure proceedings and represented many of the largest servicers of residential mortgage loans. Pillar was formed by the firm to handle the bulk of the foreclosure processing.

The attorney general’s office claimed that the Baum firm “repeatedly” filed legal papers in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings “without taking appropriate steps to verify the accuracy of” allegations, the lender’s right to foreclose or to file a bankruptcy proof of claim.

***

 

Related articles

Finding significant citations for legal opinions – Google Scholar Blog

English:Image via Wikipedia

Read entire announcement from Google Scholar here.

Allowing users to find citing documents for an article is a key feature of Google Scholar.Ever since they added legal opinions,  legal researchers have asked them to make it easy to find significant citing decisions for a case – that is, decisions that discuss a case at some length, possibly supporting it, overturning it or differentiating it from others.

They are changing how they present citations to legal opinions. Now, instead of sorting the citing documents by their prominence, Scholar sorts them by the extent of discussion of the cited case. Opinions that discuss the cited case in detail are presented before ones that mention the case briefly. They indicate the extent of discussion visually and indicate opinions that discuss the cited case at length, that discuss it moderately and those that discuss it briefly. Opinions that don’t discuss the cited case are left unmarked. For example, see opinions citing Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F. 3d 181.





Related articles

Judge Rebuffs Challenge to Ban on Non-Lawyer Firm Ownership-NYLJ

A challenge by Jacoby & Meyers to New York state’s ban on law firms accepting equity investments from non-lawyers has been dismissed by a federal judge.

Southern District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (See Profile) on March 8 said the personal injury firm’s lawsuit challenging Rule 5.4 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conductmust fail because the rule is not the only one in New York that “forecloses plaintiffs from receiving non-lawyer equity investment,” but it was the only one challenged by the firm.

***

New York Assistant Attorneys General Daniel A. Schulze and Michael J. Siudzinski represented the state in Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. The Presiding Justices of the First, Second Third and Fourth Departments, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 11 Civ. 3387.

Related articles

Circuit Finds Attorney Ad Rule on Specialty Violates Free Speech-NYLJ

Parts of a New York rule requiring that attorneys who claim to be certified specialists make prescribed disclosure statements violates the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday.

Buffalo personal injury lawyer J. Michael Hayes convinced the Second Circuit that there was a lack of clear standards for enforcing Rule 7.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct on attorney specializations.

Mr. Hayes had drawn the attention of the Attorney Grievance Committee in the Eighth Judicial District for inadequate disclosures on his letterhead and on one of two billboards advertising his services in 1999.

Although he was never formally disciplined for running afoul of Rule 7.4, “Identification of Practice and Specialty,” Mr. Hayes was facing potential discipline for his letterhead when he filed an action in the Western District seeking a declaration that the rule was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied.

On March 5, the Second Circuit agreed in Hayes v. State of New York Attorney Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District10-1587-cv, reversing Western District Judge John T. Elfvin’s grant of summary judgment to the grievance committee and the decision of Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, who rejected Mr. Hayes’ void-for-vagueness claim following a bench trial in 2010.

 

 

Related articles

Stewart Challenges Resentence, Claims Penalty for Speech-NYLJ

Read Mark Hamblett’s full text article here.

Mr. Fahringer told the circuit panel hearing United States v. Stewart, 10-3185-cr., that it was wrong to punish Ms. Stewart for comments made “on the steps of the courthouse,” where there has always been “much wider latitude” for speech.

He urged the panel not to go “down that road” because “no one will be able to comment after a sentence for fear that the same thing could happen to them.”

Read Ms. Stewart’s brief.

***

And when asked about Mr. Fahringer’s argument that the benefit of the doubt goes to the speaker when the speech is ambiguous, Mr. Dember answered that “Judge Koeltl didn’t find any of the statements ambiguous at all.”

Read the brief of the United States.

 

 

Related articles

MIDDLEFIELD, NY – For the second time this week, a judge has ruled that New York State towns have the right to establish zoning ordinances that ban natural gas drilling within their borders.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,246 other followers