Firm News

Brad is quoted in an article entitled "Navigating the Complexity of a Long Term Care Insuarnce Policy.  Click here to read this article.

The recent case of Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inherited IRAs do not qualify for the bankruptcy exemption afforded to a debtor's own retirement accounts. Heidi Clark and her husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed an IRA that Heidi had inherited from her mother as exempt.  Originally, the Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court ruled that Ms. Clark’s inherited IRA was not exempt as a retirement account.  After winding through federal district court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case.  The Court unanimously ruled that inherited IRAs do not qualify for the bankruptcy exemption afforded to a debtor's own retirement accounts. The Court’s ruling was based on three factors differentiating between an inherited IRA and a beneficiary’s own IRA:
 
1.      The beneficiary of an inherited IRA cannot make additional contributions to the account.  An IRA owner, however, can make additional contributions to the account.
 
2.      The beneficiary of an inherited IRA must take required minimum distributions from the account regardless of how old the beneficiary is.  An IRA owner, however, can defer distributions at least until age 70 1/2.
 
3.      The beneficiary of an inherited IRA can withdraw all funds anytime, for any reason, without a penalty.  An IRA owner must generally wait until age 59 1/2 to take distributions without incurring penalties.

Brad is quoted in an article in MarketWatch entitled, "Who's Getting the Beach House? Tell Your Heirs Now." Click here to read this article.

Brad is quoted in a recent CNN Money/Genworth article entitled, "The Biggest Threat to Retirement Planning." Click here to read this article.

Brad participated on a panel, "Legalized Marijuana Update," at the annual Conference of Western Attorney Generals held in Park City, Utah in July 2014.  Participants in the panel included: John Suthers, Colorado Attorney General; Bruce Turcott, Washington Assistant Attorney General; David Blake, Colorado Deputy Attorney General and Tim Cullen, Parter OpenVAPE.

Brad is quoted in a recent Market Wealth article entitled "How a Parent's Health-Care Bills Could Hurt You."  Click here to read this article.

GAO released its report on long term care reform. It's a starting point.  Click here to read the report.

NAELA responds to GAO Long Term Care Reform Report.  Click here to read the response.  

To investigate a nursing home for a loved one, you may contact the local Ombudsman program to identify facilities that can meet your needs.  It is a free consumer advocacy program.   

Brad was recently on Dr. Sam Brinkman's "Neuro Matters Radio Show.  Please use this link to listen to this interesting show. http://cdn.voiceamerica.com/health/011384/brinkman060314.mp3

Washington, DC – The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), an association of attorneys dedicated to improving the quality of legal services provided to older Americans and individuals with special needs, is proud to announce its appointment of Bradley J. Frigon, CELA, CAP, of Englewood, Colo., as President of the 2014-2015 Board of Directors. Frigon will begin serving as NAELA President on June 1, 2014.

Recent Social Security Administration (SSA) rules have the potential to impact the validity and administration of special needs trusts. This article addresses important implications of paying for third party travel and paying third parties for goods and services with the funds of a special needs trust.

Working with trustees and beneficiaries who find themselves in changed circumstances can present very difficult roadblocks in the administration of a trust. It is tempting (and justified) to bemoan the fact that Colorado has yet to put a decanting statute into place. With some creative problem solving, though, it may be possible to achieve the same result that a decanting statute offers.

It appears that Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) and Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), Medicare Part C and Part D private carriers, also come into the fold as entities that parties will have to deal with regarding Medicare secondary payment subrogation rights as these private carriers begin seeking reimbursement for payments made for services in which Medicare is a secondary payer.

It appears that Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs) and Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), Medicare Part C and Part D private carriers, also come into the fold as entities that parties will have to deal with regarding Medicare secondary payment subrogation rights as these private carriers begin seeking reimbursement for payments made for services in which Medicare is a secondary payer.

A recent case from Louisiana illustrates the high expectations that the personal injury attorney must live up to when advising clients regarding settlements. In the recent case of Jones v. ABC Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6504323 (La.App. 5 Cir. Dec. 12. 2013), Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, filed a legal malpractice action against two law firms that represented them in settlement of a medical malpractice and products liability action for injuries related to the minor daughter’s heart surgery. Plaintiff and her ex-husband entered into an aggregate settlement for all claims for $8,250,000. The trial court later required a third party trustee to administer a trust for the daughter’s needs. The trial court also allocated to the Plaintiff $65,000 for loss of consortium but denied her individual claims for medical expenses, mental anguish (a claim allowed in Louisiana), and lost wages. The mother initiated malpractice claims against her attorneys, claiming that her counsel (she hired and fired a number of attorneys) did not inform her of how the settlement would be allocated and did not inform her that a third party trustee would be used to manage her daughter’s trust; she took issue that trustee’s fees would be deducted from the settlement funds used to establish the trust.

On June 12, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey published Taransky v. Sebelius (No. 12-4437, Slip Op. D. NJ. June 13, 2013) finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Ms. Taransky failed to exhaust her options for administrative appeal. However, the court found that despite state trial court’s order on a stipulation allocating all settlement recovery to non-medical expenses, Ms. Taransky received payment from a “primary plan” responsible for payment of her medical expenses that had been covered by Medicare. As a result, Ms. Taransky was required to reimburse Medicare under the MSP.

What the Supreme Court giveth, Congress can take away. The federal Medicaid statute has long required that Medicaid agencies recover from third parties legally liable for health care items or services to the extent that the Medicaid program had paid for those items or services. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(25)(H). States also were required to have individuals assign to the State the individual’s right to payment for medical care from any third party. 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(a)(1)(A).

Bradley J Frigon is the current President Elect of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. In May of 2014 he will assume the position of President and serve in that capacity for one year.