10:71-2.16 Retroactive eligibility for Medicaid
(a) All applicants for Medicaid Only shall be queried as to whether or not they have
outstanding unpaid medical bills incurred within the three month period prior to the month of
application for Medicaid Only. Those indicating the existence of such bills are to be supplied
with an "Application for payment of unpaid medical bills," form FD-74, for completion. The
intake worker will be responsible for assisting the applicant, where necessary, in the
interpretation and completion of the application form (regardless of whether the individual is
eventually determined to be eligible for Medicaid). The intake worker will not be responsible
for making a financial determination of eligibility for the three-month period in question.
(b) The applicant shall attach all outstanding unpaid medical bills to the FD- 74 form and
forward it to the:
Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services
Retroactive Eligibility Unit
PO Box 712 Mail Code 10
Trenton, NJ 08625-0712
(c) For individuals who are incapable of acting on their own behalf, an authorized agent can
make application for retroactive Medicaid eligibility when there are outstanding medical bills.
Such persons, at the time of application, should be provided with a form FD-74 for
completion and submission to the retroactive eligibility unit with the unpaid medical bills
attached.
(d) In the case of an individual who is deceased, an authorized agent, as defined above,
may make application for retroactive Medicaid eligibility by obtaining an application form FD-
74 from either the county welfare board or the Medicaid District Office.

10:71-2.15 Notice of agency decision
Designation of personnel responsible for preparation of decision notices shall be at the
discretion of the agency.

10:71-2.14 Disposition of application
(a) It is the intent of State law and policy that the normal method for disposing of
applications recommended for approval shall be by the authority vested in the director of
welfare to make decisions on eligibility for Medicaid Only. The director of welfare has the
same authority to make case decisions other than approvals.
(b) The director may delegate such authority to any staff member or members as he/she
may determine. He/she shall exercise this right of delegation in such a way as to assure the
available at all times of some staff member possessing the requisite authority to make
decisions and to authorize payment by the Division of Medical Assistance and Health
Services.
(c) Applications which may be held for the welfare board are:
1. Those where immediate medical need is not indicated; or
2. Those where the director believes that there is valid cause to question the available
evidence on any point of eligibility, or where the case presents a special problem;
3. If so held, the application shall be identified in the narrative portion of the minutes, and
in each instance shall include a brief statement of the question or special problem involved
and the decision of the board.

10:71-2.13 Supervisory review and approval
(a) In most cases an eligibility worker will complete the investigation and processing of the
application.
(b) All records shall be reviewed by a supervisory staff member prior to final disposition.
(c) Any difference of opinion between worker and supervisor shall be resolved by a
conference, and, if necessary, the issue shall be referred to a higher administrative level for
disposition.
(d) All records of application shall be approved in writing by the supervisor following review,
either by signature or initialed transcript signature.

10:71-2.12 Recommendation for agency decision
The eligibility worker is initially responsible for the recommendation for approval or denial.
The eligibility worker will complete the work sheet and authorization for medical assistance
PR-1 and a copy will be sent to the Medicaid unit for preparation of the MAP-1. The
statement of income available for nursing home payment PR-1 (formerly PA-3L) will be
completed in appropriate cases.

10:71-2.11 Case recording
All pertinent information relating to the eligible applicant shall be recorded.

10:71-2.10 Collateral investigation
(a) "Collateral investigation" shall refer to contacts with individuals other than members of
applicant's immediate household, made with the knowledge and consent of the applicant(s).
(b) The primary purpose of collateral contacts is to verify, supplement or clarify essential
information.
(c) The applicants will usually be able to help select the most likely sources of information
about themselves. If they are unwilling to have the necessary inquiries made and are unwilling to secure the required information from such sources themselves, then it shall be
explained that the CBOSS will be unable to certify entitlement to Medicaid Only.

10:71-2.9 Process of establishing eligibility
The process of establishing eligibility involves a review of the application for completeness,
consistency, and reasonableness. A personal face to face interview with the applicant or
his/her authorized agent is required.

10:71-2.8 Assignment of pending application for completion of eligibility
determination
Each CBOSS shall provide a method to assure assignment of pending application to a
worker within three working days and establish a follow-up tickler system.

10:71-2.7 Reports to the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired under
specified circumstances
By law, the CBOSS is required to report to the Commission for the Blind and Visually
Impaired, every individual coming to its attention who is known to be, or who is believed
likely to become, permanently blind. The permanent information shall be registered with the
Commission in the prescribed form.

10:71-2.6 Registration procedures and record of inquiries
(a) Official registration of an application consists of the following steps:
1. Entry in application register under appropriate classification as new, reapplication,
reopened application or transfer;
2. Assignment of case control number (registration number) to a new application, or
reassignment of previous number to a reapplication or reopened application;
3. Preparation of appropriate form PA-9, registration card.
(b) So far as possible, registration shall be completed on the same day that application for
assistance is made. If the application is made outside the CBOSS office, registration shall
be completed within three working days.
(c) An inquiry is any request for information about assistance programs which is not a
request for an application. A record is necessary only when the inquiry requires follow-up
action.
(d) The Institutional Services Section makes Medicaid Only referrals for adults
contemplating discharge from specific state and county institutions. These cases are to be
registered within two working days.

10:71-2.5 Application policy and procedure
(a) Application for Medicaid Only may be taken by the CBOSS where the applicant resides
or is institutionalized at the time of making application.
(b) A legally appointed guardian shall always be recognized as an authorized agent to
initiate an application to establish eligibility for Medicaid Only.
(c) In Medicaid Only, an individual who wishes to apply may be confined at home or at an
institution, or may be subject to a critical illness or injury which impedes action on his or her
own behalf. Consequently, the CBOSS shall accept any one of the following, in order of
priority as listed, as an authorized agent for the purpose of initiating an application:
1. A relative by blood or marriage;
2. A staff member of a public or private welfare agency of which the person is a client, who
has been designated by the agency to so act;
3. A physician or attorney of whom the person is respectively a patient or client;
4. A staff member of an institution or facility in which a person is receiving care, who has
been designated by the institutional facility to so act

10:71-2.4 Intake policy and procedure
(a) "Intake" is a term applied to the CBOSS's activities in relation to requests for information
pertaining to or requests for Medicaid Only.
(b) When a client or a representative of a client inquires, for Medicaid Only, an appointment
for an interview with the client shall be arranged promptly. Such inquiries shall be recorded
as inquiries unless and until there is an interview which results in a decision to make
application for assistance.
(c) When the inquiry is by letter or telephone, an appointment, if requested, shall be
arranged promptly. An application for Medicaid Only is not to be taken if applicant plans to
or has applied for SSI.
(d) All inquiries and referrals shall be cleared with the State Data Exchange (SDX) and any
previous information on file shall be made available to the worker for the initial interview.

10:71-2.3 Policy and procedure on prompt disposition
(a) The maximum period of time normally essential to process an application for the aged is
30 days; for the disabled or blind, 60 days.
(b) "Date of effective disposition" based upon either administrative or board action means:
1. In the case of an approved application, the effective date of the application. (Either the
date of application, or the date of form PA-1C, whichever is earlier);
2. In the case of a denied application, the date on which written notification informing the
applicant of his or her lack of eligibility and the reason therefor is sent to him or her;
3. In the case of a withdrawn application, the date on which written notification confirming
to the client that the agency has taken cognizance of his or her voluntary withdrawal is sent
to him or her; or
4. In the case of a dismissed application, the date on which written notification informing
the applicant of the dismissal and the reasons therefor is sent to him or her.
(c) It is recognized that there will be exceptional cases where the proper processing of an
application cannot be completed within the 30/60 day period. Where substantially reliable
evidence of eligibility is still lacking at the end of the designated period, the application may
be continued in pending status. In each such case, the CBOSS shall be prepared to
demonstrate that the delay resulted from one of the following:
1. Circumstances wholly within the applicant's control; or
2. A determination to afford the applicant, whose proof of eligibility has been inconclusive,
a further opportunity to develop additional evidence of eligibility before final action on his or
her application; or
3. An administrative or other emergency that could not reasonably have been avoided; or
4. Circumstances wholly outside the control of both the applicant and CBOSS.
(d) When the complete processing of an application is delayed beyond 30 days for the
aged or 60 days for the blind or disabled, written notification shall be sent to the applicant on
or before the expiration of such period, setting forth the specific reasons for delay.
(e) Each county director of welfare shall arrange operational procedures and establish appropriate operational controls within his or her staff organization to expedite the
processing of applications and assure the maximum possible compliance with these
standards.
(f) Control records on the exceptional cases shall disclose at any time the identity of all
applications which have been in pending status beyond normal limits for processing and the
reason therefore. Such record shall be adequate to make possible the preparation of a
report of such information at any time it might be requested by the CBOSS or the Division of
Medical Assistance and Health Services.

10:71-2.2 Responsibilities in the application process
(a) The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services is the administrative unit of the
Department of Human Services responsible for coordinating the administration of Medicaid
Only with the Supplemental Security Income program. This Division provides for payment of
claims for, and evaluation of health services rendered under, Medicaid Only; maintains
administrative liaison with other departmental divisions; and provides professional, medical
and paramedical staff which is advisory to this Division in all matters of health care relevant
to the administration of Medicaid Only. This Division contracts with CBOSSs for
reimbursement of costs of administering the Medicaid Only program.
(b) The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and the Commissioner of the
Department of Human Services shall establish policy and procedures for the application
process and supervise the operation of and compliance with the policy and procedures so
established.
(c) The CBOSS exercises direct responsibility in the application process to:
1. Inform the applicants about the purpose and eligibility requirements for Medicaid Only,
inform them of their rights and responsibilities under its provisions and inform applicants of
their right to a fair hearing;
2. Receive applications;
3. Assist the applicants in exploring their eligibility for assistance;
4. Make known to the applicants the appropriate resources and services both within the agency and the community, and, if necessary, assist in their use;
5. Assure the prompt and accurate submission of eligibility data to the Medicaid status files
for eligible persons and prompt notification to ineligible persons of the reason(s) for their
ineligibility;
6. The CBOSSs shall also provide supportive social services which will enhance cure and
rehabilitation of beneficiaries of Medicaid Only.
(d) As a participant in the application process, an applicant shall:
1. Complete, with assistance from the CBOSS if needed, any forms required by the
CBOSS as a part of the application process;
2. Assist the CBOSS in securing evidence that corroborates his/her statements;
3. Report promptly any change affecting his or her circumstances

10:71-2.1 Definitions
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Application process" means all activity performed by the Income Maintenance Section
relating to a request for medical assistance payments. The application process is primarily
geared toward the determination of basic eligibility. However, since intake by its very nature
involves a combination of services and income maintenance functions, a service worker
shall be available as required during such process.
"Applicant," in Medicaid Only, means the aged, disabled or blind individual or his/her
authorized agent who executes the formal written application (PA- 1G).
"Approved" means that the applicant has been determined to be eligible for Medicaid Only.
"CBOSS" means county board of social services.
"Disposition of the application" means the official determination of the CBOSS that one of
the following actions is appropriate: approval or rejection as defined in the section.
"MRT" means Medical Review Team.
"New application" means a written request for assistance from an individual or his/her
agent who has never previously requested assistance in any county in the State under the
Medicaid Only program.
"Pending application" means the general term for application, reapplication, reopened
application or transfer application prior to official disposition.
"Poverty guidelines" means, with respect to a household, the income poverty line as
prescribed and revised at least annually pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2). The poverty
guidelines are a simplified version of the Federal Government's statistical poverty thresholds
used by the Census Bureau to prepare its statistical estimates of the number of persons and
families in poverty. The poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human
Services pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2) are used for administrative purposes, for example,
for determining whether a person or family is financially eligible for assistance or services
under a particular Federal program.
"Reapplication" means a written request for assistance by the individual whose previous
application was rejected in any county in the State and who requests reconsideration of
his/her current eligibility for Medicaid Only.
"Registration" means the action of the CBOSS in assigning a control number to an
application.
"Rejected" is an inclusive term (for statistical purposes) for the following actions:
1. Denied means that the applicant has been determined to be ineligible for assistance for
a specific reason.
2. Dismissed means official recognition that eligibility need not be considered further
because:
i. The applicant died (however, if there were unpaid medical bills incurred subsequent to
inquiry or application, whichever occurred first, the application process is to be completed);
or
ii. The applicant cannot be located; or
iii. The application was registered in error; or
iv. The applicant moved to another county in New Jersey during the application process.
3. Withdrawn means that the applicant decided not to pursue the application further.
"Reopened application" means a written request by a former beneficiary in any county in
the State for reconsideration of his or her current eligibility for the program.
"Transfer application" means a written request for assistance by the individual who at the
time of registration is still receiving assistance through the CBOSS of another county from
which he or she moved.

10:71-1.11 Availability of chapter
(a) A current up-to-date copy of the chapter or any part of it is available from the Division of
Medical Assistance and Health Services at the cost of printing and mailing to anyone who
requests it in writing.
(b) All public and university libraries which have agreed to keep the chapter up-to-date will
have a copy available under their regulations.
(c) Each legal services office will be furnished with a copy of this chapter free of charge.
(d) Welfare, social service and other non-profit organizations will be furnished with a copy
of the chapter at no cost by an official written request to the Division of Medical Assistance
and Health Services.
(e) All supplementary State policy directives will routinely be sent to those who have been
supplied with the chapter. A mailing list will be maintained by the Division.

10:71-1.10 Revisions of the chapter
The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services shall issue revisions and changes
to this chapter as necessary. It is the responsibility of each holder of the chapter to maintain
its accuracy by inserting new material and removing obsolete pages promptly.

10:71-1.9 Providing chapter material in adverse action situations
Specific chapter material necessary for an applicant or beneficiary or his or her
representative to determine whether a hearing should be requested or to prepare for a
hearing shall be provided to such persons without charge.

10:71-1.8 County board of social services responsibility; chapter
The director of the CBOSS shall assign copies of this chapter to staff members as
appropriate and shall ensure that such persons are thoroughly familiar with its contents,
apply the required policy and procedures correctly, and keep up- to-date on all policy changes.

10:71-1.6 Basic principles of administration
(a) The following principles of administration shall apply to the Medicaid Only program.
1. Any aged, blind or disabled person who believes he/she is eligible shall be assured an
opportunity to make application (including reapplication) for Medicaid Only by completing
the appropriate application form.
2. The applicants or beneficiaries are the primary source of information. However, it is the
responsibility of the agency to make the determination of eligibility and to use secondary
sources when necessary, with the applicant's knowledge and consent.
3. No duplication of assistance: No beneficiary of Medicaid Only shall receive, during the
same period, any other medical assistance from the State or any political subdivision thereof
with respect to any maintenance requirements or other need for which allowance is made in
the Medicaid Only program (see N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.14 regarding inmates of correctional
institutions). The food stamp program is not considered a duplication of public assistance.
4. There shall be strict adherence to law and complete conformity with administrative
policies. Requirements other than those established by law or regulations shall not be
imposed on any person as a condition of receiving medical assistance.
5. The applicants or beneficiaries shall have the right to request appeal on the action or
inaction of the agency whenever they believe that they have not been given full
consideration under the law. A fair hearing shall be conducted by an impartial official of the
Department of Human Services in accordance with prescribed procedure when:
i. An application for Medicaid Only is denied;
ii. An application for Medicaid Only is not acted upon by the county welfare board within
30 days for the aged and 60 for the disabled or blind; or
iii. Medicaid Only is terminated.
6. Information about applicants and beneficiaries and their circumstances shall not be
disclosed except as required for the proper and efficient administration of the program and
only to those agencies involved in the lawful administration or operation of public welfare
functions or services.
7. There shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin
or marital, parental or birth status by state or local agencies in the administration of any
public assistance program.
10:71-1.7 Examination or review of chapter
This chapter is a public document. Copies are available in the State office of the Division of
Medical Assistance and Health Services and in each CBOSS office for examination or
review during regular office hours on regular work days.

10:71-1.5 Administrative organization
The Medicaid Only program is administered by the county boards of social services
(CBOSS) of the State of New Jersey through the Division of Medical Assistance and Health
Services in the Department of Human Services. The CBOSSs contract with the Division of
Medical Assistance and Health Services for the purpose of providing Medicaid Only benefits
to eligible persons.

10:71-1.4 Information on the chapter
This chapter sets forth the policies and procedures necessary for the orderly and equitable
administration of the Medicaid Only program as it relates to the aged, blind and disabled. It
is a statement of policy and procedures separate from all other assistance programs, and is
applicable to "Medicaid Only." The criteria for determination of eligibility are based on SSI
policy and procedure which do not necessarily coincide with standards for other public
assistance programs and therefore require separate instructions.

10:71-1.3 Living arrangements
(a) Aged, blind and disabled persons who are living in the community and meet the
requirements of the SSI program may receive Medicaid Only.
(b) Aged, blind and disabled persons who are receiving care in an eligible medical
institution and, because of income or resources, do not qualify for SSI may be eligible for
Medicaid Only.

10:71-1.2 Choice of program by applicant
(a) An aged, blind or disabled person who desires Medicaid and does not wish to receive a
money payment may apply for the Medicaid Only program. To qualify for this program,
he/she must have financial eligibility as determined by the regulations and procedures set
forth in this chapter.

(b) Persons who are neither aged, blind nor disabled qualify for Medicaid benefits when
they are determined by the county board of social services to be eligible for AFDC-related
Medicaid program. Persons whose eligibility is thus established may choose to receive
Medicaid Only benefits without accepting money payments. Regulations governing these
programs are set forth in the AFDC- related Medicaid chapter (N.J.A.C. 10:69).

10:71-1.1 General introduction
On January 1, 1974, Title XVI of the Social Security Act replaced previous Titles I (Old Age
Assistance), X (Aid to the Blind) and XIV (Aid to the Disabled), which were repealed. The
Social Security Administration administers Title XVI, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
which provides cash payments to the aged, blind and disabled. Individuals who desire
medical care only apply through the county board of social services for the Medicaid Only
program under Title XIX.

ELDER LAW & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION BOOK AND AUDIO FOR SALE
Book elder law & estate administration including:

• Why Have a Will? 
Gathering information; standard provisions; designation of fiduciaries; protective clauses; sample forms; Ethics - who is the client?

• Powers of Attorney 
Types of POAs; what should be included; why clients need them; POAs and Living Wills; sample forms

• Living Trusts (Revocable/Irrevocable) as an Estate Planning Tool 
Why it should be used; disadvantages; revocable vs. irrevocable; Insurance Trusts; sample forms

• Basic Tax Considerations Jointly-held property; “I love you” Will; no Will at all; insurance owned by client; unlimited marital deduction; estate planning in the testamentary document; 
sample forms/letters

• Estate Administration - New Probate Law in New Jersey Probate process; duties of executor/fiduciary; gathering of assets; tax returns; tax waivers; access to property; sample forms/checklists

• Medicaid Planning in Light of Federal Medicaid Reform Countable assets of Medicaid applicant; income cap/Medical needy standard; look-back period; transfers of property; personal residence; Medicaid estate recovery rules
 …and more

This practical program is designed to provide the nuts and bolts of elder law practice & estate administration practice to general practitioners and young lawyers, as well as to more experienced estate planners and professionals who help senior citizens. You’ll also gain insight on how Federal Medicaid Reform will impact seniors.
Speakers:
THOMAS D. BEGLEY, JR., ESQ.,

KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.
Chair, ABA Estate Planning & Probate Law Committee
2006 NJSBA Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year


KATHLEEN A. SHERIDAN, ESQ.


MARTIN A. SPIGNER, ESQ.


Handbook 45.00 [$36 NJSBA Member Price] pages ] Item M57809

Handbook with Audio CD $189 [$149 NJSBA Member Price Item CDP57809


*NJSBA Member Price – To qualify for this reduced price, you must provide your NJSBA Member# at the time you place your order

Contact: New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 
 (732)214-8500

Kenneth Vercammen named Super Lawyer for 2009
ABOUT SUPER LAWYERS
Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Super Lawyers is published as a special supplement in leading newspapers and city and regional magazines across the country. Super Lawyers magazine, featuring articles about attorneys named to the Super Lawyers list, is distributed to all attorneys in the state or region, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries.
Polling, research and selection are performed by Law & Politics, a publication of Key Professional Media, Inc. Law & Politics has been publishing legal magazines since 1990 and Super Lawyers since 1991.
Super Lawyers magazine names attorneys in each state who received the highest point totals, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. Rising Stars names the state's top up-and-coming attorneys.
Super Lawyers magazine is published in all 50 states and reaches more than 13 million readers.

SUPER LAWYERS SELECTION PROCESS
OVERVIEW
In selecting attorneys for Super Lawyers, Law & Politics employs a rigorous, multiphase process. Peer nominations and evaluations are combined with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.
The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel.
The Super Lawyers selection process involves three basic steps: creation of the candidate pool; evaluation of candidates by the research department; and peer evaluation by practice area.

PUBLICATION
The final published list represents no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state. The lists are published annually in state and regional editions of Super Lawyers magazines and in inserts and special advertising sections in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers. All attorneys selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers, regardless of year, can be found on superlawyers.com.
http://www.superlawyers.com/new-jersey/lawyer/Kenneth-A-Vercammen/73f0b3a6-71c1-4ae1-a5d0-803ddb2739a9.html

Will drafted after person deem incapacitated are invalid

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3743-06T23743-06T2

IN THE MATTER OF HARRY

SABLE, AN INCAPACITATED

PERSON,

MICHAEL SABLE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BARRY SABLE,

Defendant-Appellant.



Submitted May 19, 2008 - Decided

Before Judges Stern, A. A. Rodr�guez and

Collester.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Camden County, CP-03-05.

Fox Rothschild, attorneys for appellant

(Jeffrey M. Pollock, of counsel; Mr. Pollock

and Mukti N. Patel, on the brief).

Flaster Greenberg, attorneys for respondent

(Kenneth S. Goodkind and Vincent J. Nolan, III,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This appeal pits brother against brother over control of the personal estate and estate plan of their incapacitated octogenarian father.

Harry and Jean Sable were married for many years and resided at their condominium in Cherry Hill. They were the parents of three adult sons, plaintiff Michael Sable, defendant Barry Sable and Don, the middle son. Harry and two partners owned the LeGar building in Philadelphia where Harry conducted his jewelry business, advertising himself as the "King of Wedding Bands."

Harry and Jean had wills prepared by John Lolio, Esq., their personal attorney, to provide for each other and their three sons. Lolio prepared wills for Harry in 1994 and in 1998, with similar provisions. Harry left his entire estate to Jean if she survived him. If she did not survive him, Michael was to inherit the condominium and Harry's interest in the LeGar building; Barry was to receive property at 735 Sansom Street in Philadelphia, held in his name and Harry's name; and Don was to inherit the inventory of Harry Sable, Inc. Stocks and bonds were to be divided equally among the three brothers.

In addition to the wills, Lolio prepared in 1999 a financial power of attorney (POA) for Harry which named Barry as successor to Jean. In December 1999, Lolio prepared a health care POA for Harry which named Michael as successor to Jean. Jean also had a health care POA and, in 1999, she substituted Michael for Harry because of Harry's diminished capacity.

In 1999, the family started to notice Harry exhibiting symptoms of dementia. Although he still worked until late 1999, he became more confused and forgetful. In 2000, Harry was diagnosed with Alzheimer's by Dr. Cook at Pennsylvania Hospital and placed on medication. On February 26, 2001, Dr. Raphael, Harry's primary care doctor, said that Harry was not fully coherent and unable to care for himself or run his business. In July 2001, Dr. Barry Rovner examined Harry for memory problems and hallucinations, and he scored eighteen on the mini-mental exam, a widely used screening tool for assessing cognitive impairment. Harry was examined by Rovner again in July 2002 and scored fourteen on the mini-mental.
After Harry's dementia became apparent, Jean handled the family finances until she suffered a severe stroke in June 2002. At this time, Barry lived in Marlton, Don in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, and Michael in Los Angeles, California. The following month, the three brothers met with Earl Morgenstern, their parents' accountant, and Lolio, the attorney, to determine how to pay for their parents' care. In the course of that meeting Morgenstern, the co-executor of the parents' estates, discussed estate plans with the brothers. In August 2002, Lolio sent the brothers a letter enclosing copies of the parents' wills and stating:

At the request of Harry Sable, Don Sable and Michael Sable, (the children of Harry Sable) and after receiving the medical evaluations of each parent, I am faxing a copy of your father's and mother's respective Wills dated February 4, 1998. It is my understanding that Earl Morganstern, CPA, who is the substitute Executor of each Will has already discussed the provisions and terms of the Will with each of you at a separate meeting held shortly after our initial meeting. Based on the medical evaluation of each parent, it is apparent that no changes can be made to their wills due to their mental impairments.

Barry and Don met with caregivers, as well as other attorneys and accountants regarding their parents' care, estate and financial planning. Don said neither Jean nor Harry were consulted because the brothers knew their parents "were unquestionably mentally incompetent, my father due to his Alzheimer's and to the degree to which it had progressed and my mother due to the dementia caused by her stroke."

On November 19, 2002, Harry was examined by a neurologist, Dr. Brad J. Tinkelman, who found him disoriented and suffering from dementia, which he suspected was due to Alzheimer's. In March 2003 Harry was again examined by Dr. Rovner. This time he scored a nine on the mini-mental.

Things came to a head in August 2003, when Harry and Jean were at the New Jersey shore with two caretakers and Harry attacked Jean and a caregiver. The police were called and Harry was briefly jailed and involuntarily committed to the Carrier Clinic. Dr. Franco, the treating psychiatrist, said Harry was at times incoherent and dependent on others for basic needs. On September 3, 2003, he was examined by Dr. Ehab Tuppo at the Center for Aging of UMDNJ and was diagnosed with severe dementia. Dr. Tuppo reported Harry scored three on the mini-mental, but he was capable of eating and walking independently.

Meanwhile, also in September 2003, Jean was admitted to Cooper Hospital. Upon her discharge, Michael arranged for her placement at the Jewish Geriatric Home, a nursing home in Cherry Hill, where she remained until her death on January 21, 2005. Both Harry and Barry were upset at Jean's placement at the nursing home. Barry was angry he was not consulted, and Harry wanted Jean to come home. On two occasions Barry attempted to take Jean out of the nursing home, and the police were called.

A geriatric psychiatrist examined Harry on October 1, 2003, found him disoriented as to time and place and lacking understanding as to why Jean was in the nursing home.

Both Harry and Barry continued to press for Jean's discharge from the nursing home despite Michael's claim that she wished to remain. Finally, in October 2003 suit was filed by Michael Kouvatas, Esq., on behalf of Barry and Harry as co-plaintiffs against Michael and the nursing home to compel Jean's release and for appointment of Harry as Jean's guardian. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed after Jean's death.

Also in October 2003, Barry took his father to Lolio's office for the purpose of changing Harry's will. After meeting with Harry alone, Lolio said Harry was not competent, and he refused to change the will. Lolio later testified that:

[Harry] was not competent to understand what I was saying, he didn't know where he was, didn't know the day of the week, didn't know the month, didn't know who the President was, just didn't have a general understanding of anything at that point in time. So I basically refused to continue

. . . preparing any new documents for Harry because I felt and believed that he wasn't competent enough to understand what he was doing.

Five days later on October 8, 2003, Harry was examined at his home by Dr. Murray H. Moliken, a doctor of geriatric medicine. The examination was videotaped, and the transcript indicates that Harry had difficulty answering, without assistance, many of Moliken's questions. Dr. Moliken did not review Harry's prior medical records, stating that he did not want other opinions to influence him. He was also not aware that Harry had been involuntarily admitted to Carrier Clinic in August 2003, or that Harry had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Dr. Moliken said his questions to Harry were based on information obtained from Barry, Harry's caregiver, and attorney Kouvatas. He said he did not believe that Harry was capable of providing the necessary information for the examination. Dr. Moliken believed it was rational for Harry to be upset that Jean was in the nursing home. He concluded that Harry was mentally impaired to some extent but that he understood what he wanted for his wife and how his assets should be distributed. Dr. Moliken later testified to his opinion that Harry had testamentary capacity when he examined him in October 2003.

After Dr. Moliken's examination, Barry called Kouvatas and told him that Harry wanted to draft estate planning documents. On October 24, 2003, Harry revoked his health care POA naming Michael, and signed a new health care POA naming Barry with no alternate. Kouvatas also prepared a new will for Harry which made no disposition for Jean, although she was still living at that time, and left the entire estate to Barry. After Harry expressed some concern over the dispositions, Kouvatas prepared another will in November 2003 which provided that Harry's entire estate should go to Jean in trust if she survived him, and the remainder to Barry. The will also provided that if Jean predeceased Harry, the estate was to be divided with Barry receiving seventy-five percent and Don the remaining twenty-five percent. There was no disposition for Michael. Harry signed the will, witnessed by two attorneys, and executed another financial POA in favor of Barry granting him even broader powers over Harry's finances than the prior POA.

In January 2005, Michael filed a complaint, later amended, to have Harry declared incapacitated, to remove Barry as Harry's guardian, to appoint a new guardian, to void POAs and any will executed by Harry after October 1, 2003, due to Harry's incapacity and Barry's undue influence, and for costs and attorney fees. Barry filed an answer and counterclaim to be named guardian of Harry's person and property. On March 21, 2005, Judge Vogelson held a pretrial hearing following which he determined that Harry was incapacitated, and appointed a temporary guardian for his person. Subsequently, on March 20, 2006, the court granted Michael's motion and appointed a permanent care manager for Harry after removing Barry as guardian over Harry's property on grounds he had mismanaged the accounts and used Harry's assets for personal gain. Martin Abo, CPA, was appointed as a temporary guardian over Harry's property, and he directed Barry to provide him with financial records to review transactions of Harry's assets after October 1, 2003.

The trial began in May 2006 and continued over several trial days. Since there was no dispute that Harry was incapacitated, the central issue was whether he was incapacitated and lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the will and other documents in October and November 2003.

Michael presented the testimony of Dr. Jeffrey M. Kargman, who was qualified as an expert in geriatric psychiatry. Dr. Kargman reviewed reports of various physicians who had examined Harry dating back to 2001, all of which stated Harry suffered from dementia. He conducted a clinical interview of Harry, reviewed the discovery and discussed the matter with doctors at Carrier Clinic as well as Dr. Moliken. He concluded that Harry suffered from dementia, Alzheimer's type, since at least 2001 and opined that, as of October 1, 2003, Harry did not have the capacity to execute a will and related documents. He found that Harry did not understand his own financial status at that time and did not have the capacity to understand concepts necessary to knowingly execute a will such as a trust. Moreover, he found that Harry was very susceptible to Barry's influence.

Don Sable testified that Barry restricted Harry's access to his other sons and instructed his caregiver not to permit Harry to meet with them alone. Other witnesses testified to examples of Barry bullying Harry and pressuring him to speak in accordance with Barry's instructions.

Evidence was also presented of Barry's misapplication and misappropriation of Harry's assets. Barry was also unable to document how he had spent significant amounts of his father's money. He conceded that he had borrowed $78,000 without any documentation showing that it was paid back as he claimed. He moved all the inventory from his father's store to his own business, claming it was for reasons of security. He also removed jewelry and cash worth about $30,000 from a safe deposit box, most of which he never returned. In August 2004, he used his POA to deed 735 Sansom Street, which had been held in his name and Harry's, to himself alone, claiming Harry's name was only on the deed because Harry had originally lent him the down payment, which he repaid. He said he paid $254,176 in legal bills on behalf of his father but could only document about $60,000. Moreover, he lost a check for $35,000, and that created a cash flow problem that he solved by withdrawing $30,000 of Harry's IRA assets, resulting in an unnecessary tax liability.

On December 14, 2006 after testimony had concluded, Judge Vogelson issued a lengthy oral opinion setting forth his findings and legal conclusions. He found the testimony of Michael's witnesses to be credible. He accepted Dr. Kargman's opinion that Harry suffered from dementia Alzheimer's type dating back to at least 2000, that his cognitive dysfunction worsened over succeeding years so that he did not have the mental capacity in 2003 to execute a last will and testament or power of attorney, and that could be easily controlled or manipulated by Barry. He found that attorney Lolio and CPA Morgenstern were credible in their judgments that both Jean and Harry were so mentally incapacitated that they could not modify their wills or execute other estate planning documents. He further found credible Lolio's recollection of the incident when Barry brought Harry to his office for the purpose of changing his will and Lolio's refusal to do so after meeting alone with Harry and determining that Harry lacked the mental and legal capacity to do so. Judge Vogelman noted that Barry denied ever taking Harry to Lolio's office to change his will and found that to be "incredible" and unworthy of belief.

In contrast, Judge Vogelson found that Barry and his witnesses lacked credibility. With respect to Dr. Moliken's testimony and similar testimony from his associate Dr. Monzo that Harry was competent to execute the new will and accompanying documents prepared by attorney Kouvatas, Judge Vogelson faulted the testimony since neither doctor considered Harry's medical history and the reports of the numerous physicians who noted Harry's dementia. Moreover, after reviewing the videotaped interview between Dr. Moliken and Harry, the judge stated that Dr. Moliken's opinion totally lacked merit, at one point describing it as "just fantastic testimony."

The judge further rejected the testimony of attorney Kouvatas, noting that he represented both Barry and Harry and later acknowledged that "Barry is running the show," confirming that Harry did not have independent counsel when he signed the will and other documents. The judge described the circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the wills and documents prepared by Kouvatas as "unusual and suspicious." Finally, he found Barry's testimony lacked credibility as to all major issues.

Judge Vogelson found that a confidential relationship existed between Harry and Barry and that Barry exercised undue influence on his father, controlling and manipulating him at a time when he did not have the strength of mind to resist. He accepted the testimony of Don Sable and other witnesses that Barry kept his father away from the other brothers in order to exercise greater power over his father and rejected Barry's denials as not credible. The judge added:

There is no question in the Court's mind and I so find that Harry was — had enfeeble [sic] mind caused by the Alzheimer's to such an extent that it was easily subject to the undue influence of Barry Sable and those associated with him. . . . Harry, the Court finds, would not in any circumstances have disinherited his wife or his son, Michael absent undue influence. He wouldn't have partially disinherited his son, Don, and that he relied totally on Barry and trusted Barry, that Barry was at all times acting in a fiduciary capacity in relationship with his father under various durable financial powers of attorney, and I find further that at all relevant times, Barry was in a confidential relationship with Harry as his son and as the person primarily responsible for taking care and as agent under his power of attorney.

On December 19, 2006, Judge Vogelson set forth his factual findings and legal conclusions in a written summary as follows:

The Court finds as fact that Harry Sable lacked the mental capacity as of October 1, 2003, and continually thereafter to the present date, to execute a will or any other document, to act as a plaintiff in this lawsuit, to act as a guardian for any other person, and to govern himself and manage his own affairs; that all three of his sons were aware of his level of incapacity and acted in accordance therewith in excluding Harry Sable from all decision making as to health care and finances regarding not only himself, but his wife also. Further, the Court finds Harry Sable's long time estate planning attorney, John Lolio, Esquire, who was fully familiar with Jean and Harry Sable, recognized in 2002, in part from medical records supplied to him by the three sons, that both Harry Sable and Jean Sable were so incapacitated that their wills could not be altered and that the three sons obtained copies of their parents wills and powers of attorney only after convincing John Lolio, Esquire and Earl Morganstern, C.P.A. that Jean and Harry Sable were so mentally incapacitated as to be forever unable to modify their wills and other estate planning documents. The Court further finds that John Lolio, Esquire, met with Barry Sable and Harry Sable on October 3, 2003 and again determined that Harry Sable was so incapacitated that he could not validly execute a new will and therefore refused the demands of Barry Sable he prepare a new will for Harry Sable. The Court also determines that the opinions of Dr. Moliken, Dr. Monzo, Michael Kouvatas, Esquire, Philip Fuoco, Esquire and Joseph Osefchen, Esquire, were not credible, in light of their failure to obtain and consider abundant medical information to the contrary that was readily available and that the opinions of Dr. Kargman, Michael's expert and the numerous treating physicians upon whom Dr. Kargman had relied and who had seen and treated Harry Sable from 1999 through 2003, who commented on Harry Sable's level of incapacity, are credible, accurate and persuasive.

The Court therefore concludes that any and all documents executed by Harry Sable on or after October 1, 2003, are null and void and of no legal force or effect whatsoever as a result of Harry Sable's mental incapacity at that time. Further, the Court concludes that Michael Sable has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Harry Sable lacked the mental capacity to execute a will or any other legal documents on or after October 1, 2003, so that his request for relief seeking to void all such documents is granted, together with counsel fees and costs.

It is the further opinion of the Court that while I have determined Harry Sable lacked testamentary capacity, even if he had had such capacity, at all relevant times in this matter a confidential relationship existed between Barry and Harry and Barry was primarily responsible for taking care of his father and his finances. As a result, there has been established a rebuttable presumption of undue influence against Barry, causing the burden of proof to shift to Barry, requiring him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that undue influence did not exist. He has failed to provide such proofs. Accordingly, Barry unduly influenced his father, to the extent, if at all, that Harry had capacity to execute any documents on or after October 1, 2003 to the present substituting his will for his father's, thereby rendering null and void any and all documents executed by Harry Sable on or after October 1, 2003.

The application by Barry to be reinstated by this Court as his father's healthcare and financial agent is denied as not being in Harry's best interest and is dismissed. The Court takes notice of Michael Sable's arguments in his successful motion and proceedings for removal of Barry as healthcare and financial agent of his father and the Order entered on March 20, 2006, in addition to considering the evidence adduced at the trial in this matter.

As a result of the foregoing, the Court determines that Barry Sable is liable of counsel fees and costs in this litigation and the Jean Sable litigation and counsel may submit affidavits of services and costs in support of such request, serving copies on Harry Chandless, Esq.

On January 11, 2007, Judge Vogelson heard oral argument on the amount of damages incurred as a result of Barry's

breach of his fiduciary duty. He entered final judgment on January 31, 2007 removing defendant as Harry's guardian, invalidating all documents executed by Harry after October 1, 2003, and ordering defendant to pay Harry's estate $254,176 unnecessarily expended on litigation involving Jean, as well as surcharges for money unaccounted for by defendant in the amount of $162,222.93. Attorney fees and costs were also awarded in the amount of $298,641.

On appeal, Barry argues Judge Vogelson erred as follows: (1) by admitting and accepting the expert opinion of Dr. Kargman; (2) by improperly finding undue influence through application of an incorrect burden of proof to rebut the presumption; (3) by improperly invalidating Harry's 2003 will when he was still alive; (4) by improperly assessed counsel fees and costs; and (5) by incorrectly finding that Barry breached a fiduciary duty.

Barry asserts the opinion of Dr. Kargman that Harry was incompetent as of October 1, 2003 was inadmissible as a net opinion and was improperly relied on by Judge Vogelson in reaching his conclusion. We disagree. Under our rules of evidence an expert's opinion may be based upon facts or data of the type reasonably relied on by experts in that field. While an expert medical opinion must conform to general medical standards and not standards personal to the witness, Fernandez v. Baruch, 52 N.J. 127, 130-31 (1968), personal observation is a fact that can form the basis for an opinion. Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512, 530 (1981); Savoia v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 88 N.J. Super. 153, 163 (App. Div. 1965). However, bare conclusions, unsupported by factual evidence, are inadmissible as a net opinion. State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 493 (2006). "In essence, the net opinion rule requires an expert witness to give the why and wherefore of his expert opinion, not just a mere conclusion." Vitrano by Vitrano v. Schiffman, 305 N.J. Super. 572, 575 (App. Div. 1997).

Barry argues that Dr. Kargman relied upon the mini-mental exam scores or medical reports that contradicted his own findings as well as reports from doctors not qualified to render an opinion as to Harry's capacity and that therefore his opinion was a net opinion "based on unfounded speculation or mere possibilities." Kaplan v. Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C., 339 N.J. Super. 97, 103 (App. Div. 2001); Constantou v. Ventriglia, 324 N.J. Super. 437, 451 (App. Div. 1999), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 10 (2000). Specifically, Barry argues Dr. Kargman relied on mini-mental examination results that he ultimately agreed were inaccurate because the numerical scores of 14 in July, 2002, 9 in March 2003, 3 in September 2003, and 9 in January 2003 were inconsistent since Alzheimer's is a progressive disease. Barry's contention that when an expert bases his or her opinion on a particular fact being true and the fact later turns out to be untrue, the court cannot rely on that expert's opinion. See Todd v. Sheridan, 268 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 1993). However, in Todd the factual assumption of the expert was a make-or-break factual issue on which the opinion was grounded. Such is not the case at bar. Barry argues to the contrary that Dr. Kargman relied almost entirely on the mini-mental exam scores but later admitted that the scores did not comport with the usual progression of Alzheimer's. Barry argues that the mini-mental exam scores contradict Dr. Kargman's findings and that, therefore, the whole foundation of Dr. Kargman's testimony was faulty and inadmissible.

We do not agree with Barry's characterization of Dr. Kargman's testimony. Dr. Kargman acknowledged that the scores were irregular and the September 2003 score might have been inaccurate, but he did not discount the validity of mini-mental exams. Rather, Dr. Kargman stated that the test itself is a screening test, and that many other factors are taken into account in determining mental incapacity including cognitive function, behavior, and the impression of others who have contact with the patient. In fact, in preparation for his report, Dr. Kargman reviewed Harry's medical files and the reports of many other physicians including the physicians who treated Harry at the Carrier Clinic and even Dr. Moliken. He stated that Harry's behavior as observed by others in September 2003 indicated that, while the score of three that Harry received at that time might not have been accurate, the assessment that Harry was incompetent at that time was supported by other facts. While Dr. Kargman did not invalidate the mini-mental exams, he did not rely on them to the exclusion of the other data.

Barry further argues that Dr. Kargman improperly relied on reports by doctors who were not experts in psychiatry and did not render opinion as to Harry's capacity, including a gastroenterologist, a urologist, and an oncologist. There is no merit to the arguments because although the physicians were not experts in psychiatry, their observations of Harry's behavior were relevant. Moreover, those impressions from other physicians were only part of the data that Dr. Kargman relied upon in forming his expert opinion. Dr. Kargman's opinion included his own examination of Harry, his interviews with other doctors including Dr. Moliken, his review of Harry's medical records, and his own experience in the field. Based on all of this data, Dr. Kargman formed an expert opinion that was not a net opinion and properly considered by Judge Vogelson.

Barry next poses the legal argument that the trial court improperly determined the validity of a will when the testator was still living. This legal argument was not made before Judge Vogelson, and an issue not properly raised below may not be raised on appeal unless it concerns jurisdiction or a matter of "great public interest." Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). Similarly, an error which is not brought to the attention of the trial court is not ground for reversal by the appellate court unless there is a showing of plain error, i.e., error "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. Nonetheless, we offer the following comments.

Ordinarily, a will is "ambulatory and speaks only as of the death of the testator." Matter of Will of Reilly, 201 N.J. Super. 306, 311 (App. Div. 1985). Barry argues that because Harry is still living, the court had no power to invalidate his October 2003 estate planning documents or his November 2003 will because they could not be challenged until after Harry's death.

In response, Michael cites In re Niles, 176 N.J. 282, 289-90 (2003), to support the claim that the court was within its power to nullify the will while Harry was still living.

In Niles, Laura Niles, an elderly woman with substantial assets, was influenced to change her testamentary plan to benefit her new sister-in-law's family. While Laura was still living, her former trustee filed a complaint to appoint a guardian on the ground that Laura had been unduly influenced to change her will and trust agreements. A trial was conducted and Laura was adjudicated to have been mentally incompetent to have executed a will or any other document. The new will was declared null and void because it was the result of undue influence. The trial court re-instated the original will and trust agreements and awarded attorney fees.

At no point in Niles was it indicated that it was impermissible to determine whether the will was the result of undue influence because the testator was still living. On the contrary, by implication Niles stands as authority for the proposition that when a live testator is adjudicated incompetent as of a particular date, any documents executed subsequent to that date may be invalidated.

Similarly, in In re Cohen, 335 N.J. Super. 13, 32-33 (App. Div. 2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 632 (2001), the issue was whether a testamentary plan could be changed for tax purposes if it was in conformity with the wishes of the mentally incompetent testator who was still living. The court ultimately determined that the proposed change to the testator's will was not in accordance with her testamentary plan while she was still competent. Again, by implication Cohen is authority for the proposition that a will may be invalidated during the lifetime of a testator. In fact, the court cited N.J.S.A. 3B:12-49, -50, and -62, which allow the court to transfer assets, make gifts, and change beneficiaries under life insurance policies on behalf of the incapacitated testator so long as such changes are in keeping with the original estate plan. In re Cohen, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 29-32.

Barry points to the last sentence of Cohen which states, "[w]e agree with the Chancery Division judge's ruling that it would be premature for any party to contest Henrietta's will and trust while she is alive." Id. at 33. Barry contends this language establishes that Harry's will can not be contested while he is still alive. However, in Cohen the action was brought to challenge the will while here the action was instituted to adjudicate Harry incompetent and to invalidate all the documents that he signed in October and November 2003. The same proofs were necessary to show incapacity to execute the POAs as would have been required to invalidate the will. There is no need for an additional trial to invalidate the will since the same result would be reached given the court's determination that Harry was mentally incapacitated as of October 1, 2003.

Barry cites N.J.S.A. 3B:12-27 for the proposition that a person who has previously been adjudicated incompetent may return to competency, at which point a court could adjudicate him or her competent to write a new will. After a court has adjudicated a person mentally incompetent according to N.J.S.A. 3B:12-25, the person may bring an action to determine that he or she has returned to competency. N.J.S.A. 3B:12-28. If so, the court may adjudicate the person fully or partially competent and restore his or her rights as of the time of the return to competency. N.J.S.A. 3B:12-28. Given that the court determined Harry to be incompetent as of October 1, 2003, if Harry did return to competency and the court so adjudicated him, he would be entitled to execute a new will. N.J.S.A. 3B:12-28. But there is no suggestion that Harry has returned to competency and more to the point, this would not affect the validity of the November 2003 will which the court determined was executed by Harry while mentally incapacitated. In this regard, Barry relies on the testimony of Dr. Moliken, who when asked whether Harry was oriented to time and place, said he was about "50/50" and added that a person with dementia could "have a good day" and "have a bad day." However, even accepting this testimony, there is no proof that the November 2003 will was executed during a "good day" or during a moment of lucidity, and Judge Vogelson found to the contrary.

We conclude therefore that after Harry was adjudicated incompetent as of October 1, 2003, all documents after that date, including the will, were properly invalidated.

Addressing Judge Vogelson's determination of undue influence, Barry contends it was error to require him to rebut the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing proof as opposed to a preponderance of the evidence.

In Haynes v. First National Bank of New Jersey, 87 N.J. 163, 175-76 (1981), our Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining the correct burden of proof for rebutting a presumption of undue influence. There, the testatrix, Ms. Dutrow, had two children, Dorcas and Betty, and her will divided the estate evenly between them. After Betty's death, Ms. Dutrow moved into Dorcas' home and became dependent on Dorcas for care and companionship. Dorcas substituted her attorney for Ms. Dutrow's long-time attorney, and he drew up a new will signed by Ms. Dutrow that substantially disinherited Betty's children. The Court pointed out the two necessary factors for proof of undue influence: the first is a confidential relationship which can be proved by the testator's dependence and reliance on the proponent of the will for companionship, care and support. Id. at 175-76. The second element is "suspicious circumstances," which do not need to be substantial. When these two elements exist, a presumption of undue influence arises, and the proponent of the will must overcome the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 177-78. However, in some cases, such as when an attorney who drafts the will also benefits from it, a higher standard of proof is required to rebut the presumption. In Haynes the Court held that because the attorney who prepared the will represented both testator and proponent of the new will and because there was no proof the attorney disclosed the conflict of interest to the testator, "clear and convincing" proof was necessary to overcome the presumption of undue influence. Id. at 184-85.

Here, the facts are remarkably similar in that Kouvatas represented both Barry and Harry in the Jean lawsuit and Barry conceded that he told Kouvatas what changes needed to be made to Harry's estate plan. Moreover, Kouvatas' billing reflects numerous conversations with Barry and almost none with Harry in October and November 2003. And nothing in the record indicates that Kouvatas ever disclosed to Harry that there was a conflict of interest in his representing both Harry and Barry. Accordingly, Judge Vogelson held that there was a rebuttable presumption of undue influence and Barry had the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that undue influence did not exist.

Barry contends that if the correct standard of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" had been applied, there was sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence because Dr. Moliken, Kouvatas, and the two attorney witnesses to the execution of the will testified that Harry wanted to change his will and understood what he was doing. However, Judge Vogelson specifically found that the opinions of Dr. Moliken, Kouvatas and the other witnesses that Harry had testamentary capacity were not credible, "especially in light of their failure to obtain and consider abundant medical information" available to them. There is abundant credible evidence in the record to sustain this finding by the judge.

We agree with Judge Vogelson that there was a conflict of interest resulting from Kouvatas representing both Harry and Barry so that the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence was required to rebut the presumption of undue influence. Moreover, in light of Judge Vogelson's credibility findings Barry did not satisfy the burden under the preponderance of evidence standard so that he failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence under either standard of proof.

Barry next asserts that Judge Vogelson erred in finding he breached his fiduciary duty because Harry suffered no provable damages. Judge Vogelson concluded that Barry breached his fiduciary duty under the POA given by Harry and caused damage to the estate. He directed Barry to repay $254,176 in unnecessary litigation costs, as well as a surcharge of $162,223 for losses incurred as a result of mismanagement of Harry's assets.

There is sufficient credible proof in the record to uphold Judge Vogelson's findings that Barry breached his fiduciary duty to properly manage Harry's finances. Barry lost a check so that he withdrew Harry's IRA assets prematurely. He took loans that were never documented and he never accounted for money he took from a safe deposit box. For this mismanagement, the court awarded the surcharge of $162,222 which included Abo's fee in the amount of $90,000. Furthermore, the judge found Barry expended estate funds to litigate both the Jean lawsuit and this matter, actions which the court determined were not in Harry's but in Barry's interest and resulted in unnecessary attorney fees of $254,176 on behalf of the estate. Barry was thus held liable to the estate for these litigation expenses, under N.J.S.A. 3B:14-35, which provides: "If the exercise of power concerning the estate is improper, the fiduciary is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from breach of his fiduciary duty...."

Barry argues he cannot be required to pay sums that were already paid, but there is an inadequate specification of which he claims were already paid. Abo, the accountant, described the difficulty of getting Barry or his accountant to substantiate the expenses made on behalf of Harry. Therefore, we find that Judge Vogelson correctly held that Barry breached his fiduciary duty, that Harry's estate suffered a loss because of that breach, and that Barry is liable to the estate for damages.

Lastly Barry argues that the court improperly assessed costs and attorney fees against him. Judge Vogelson awarded costs and attorney fees in the amount of $298,641, stating that the amounts expended by Michael were fair, reasonable and necessary and that if not for the litigation pursued by Michael, the misuse of Harry's property and defalcations by Barry would never have been discovered.

In a proper case the award of counsel fees is discretionary with the court and will not be reversed "absent a demonstration of manifest abuse of discretion." In re Probate of Alleged Will of Landsman, 319 N.J. Super. 252, 271 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 161 N.J. 335 (1999). New Jersey abides by the American Rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney fees. But Rule 4:42-9 specifies actions in which an award of attorney fees is allowable. The rule provides for fees in certain types of probate and guardianship proceedings, R. 4:42-9 (a)(3); it does not provide for fees when a fiduciary duty is breached. However, the court rule does not preclude a counsel fee allowance "if the incurring thereof is a traditional element of damages in a particular cause of action." Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2.9 on Rule 4:42-9 at 1602-03 (2009); Gerhardt v. Continental Ins. Co., 48 N.J. 291 (1966); see also Restatement (second) of Torts, section 914 (1979).

In Niles, supra, 176 N.J. at 298, the Supreme Court allowed as an exception to the American rule all reasonable counsel fees against a fiduciary who profited from the "pernitious tort of undue influence" on a testator or trust settlor. The Court stated the exception applied to cases "in which an executor's or a trustee's undue influence results in the development or modification of estate documents that create or expand the fiduciary's beneficial interest in the estate." Id. at 299. The Court explained that there was a special status in cases where undue influence is proved for "undue influence represents such an egregious intentional tort that it establishes a basis for punitive damages in a common law cause of action." Id. at 300.

The Niles court balanced the adherence to the American Rule with the need to make the victims of perfidious behavior whole, stating that in situations "when important public policy concerns are involved," the Court may carve out additional exceptions to the rule. Id. at 299. The Court compared the case to one involving attorney malpractice where attorney fees are awarded because the responsibility of the court is to make the victim whole. Because the fiduciary relationship and the attorney-client relationship are both premised on "utmost trust," and because an attorney and a trustee both act as officers of the court when acting on behalf of clients and beneficiaries, the Court extended the existing exception to the American Rule in attorney malpractice cases to include actions to establish a fiduciary's liability, holding that when an executor or trustee commits the pernicious tort of undue influence it should result in an award of all reasonable counsel fees and costs. Id. at 298-99.

Barry argues that there is no authority for the award of counsel fees against him because this case does not fit the exceptions enumerated in Rule 4:42-9, and he was not an executor of the estate or a trustee as was the defendant in Niles. We disagree. Even though defendant was not an executor or a trustee as was the case in Niles, he controlled Harry's estate under the POA, and based on the findings of Judge Vogelson, he influenced Harry to change the estate plan to benefit himself. The rationale for the award of attorney fees in Niles was that the estate should be made whole when "undue influence results in the development or modification of estate documents that create or expand the fiduciary's beneficial interest in the estate." Id. at 299. This is exactly what occurred in the instant case. Under principles of law and public policy set forth in Niles, Judge Vogelman properly awarded counsel fees and other related costs.


Affirmed.

31

A-3743-06T2

February 11, 2009

N.M. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health
Services and Monmouth County Board of Social Services 02-26-09
A-0828-07T1

Under an amendment to the statutes governing the federal
Medicaid program enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005, the value of an annuity purchased for the sole benefit of
the "community spouse" may be considered in determining whether
the resources of the "institutionalized spouse" exceed the
"resource limit" for Medicaid eligibility.

ABA GP Solo ELDER LAW COMMITTEE Newsletter Spring, 2009
ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division

Chairs - Kenneth Vercammen, Edison, NJ and Jay Foonberg, Beverly Hills, CA

In this issue:

1. The Legal Authority for Requiring a Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement
2. NUTS & BOLTS OF ELDER LAW & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR
3. Elder Law, Estate Planning & Probate- New ideas to expand & excel your practice Sat. August 1, 2009




1 The Legal Authority for Requiring a Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement.
s Medicare Secondary Payer Act The authority for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to require consideration of a plaintiff’s future medical expenses is found in the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA). Under the MSPA Medicare is generally precluded from paying the beneficiary’s medical expenses when payment “has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under a worker’s compensation plan, an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan (including a self-insured plan) or under no-fault insurance. Medicare payments are conditional on reimbursement from the primary payer. The requirements for Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (MSA) have developed over the years in a series of memoranda issued by CMS. The MSPA applies to both past and future medical expenses.

s Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. Historically, CMS has enforced the provisions of the MSPA only in worker’s compensation cases. However, the passage of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 requires all insurers, third party administrators for group health plans, self-insured plans, and self-administered plans to identify situations where the plan is or has been a primary plan to the Medicare program. There is a civil penalty of $1,000 per day for non-compliance. The plan shall determine whether a claimant is entitled to benefits under the Medicare program. If the claimant is determined to be so entitled, the plan must submit a report including the identity of the claimant and such other information as the secretary shall specify.
0. 
The reporting requirements for group health plans being January 1, 2009. The reporting for liability cases begins July 1, 2009. The report includes the contact information for the personal injury attorney.

s CMS Regional Coordinator Pronouncement. According to Sally Stalcup, Region VI, MSP Regional Coordinator, CMS, “At this time, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is not soliciting cases solely because of the language provided in the general release. CMS does not review or sign-off on counsel’s determination of the amount to be held to protect the Trust Fund in most cases. If we do, however, urge counsel to consider this issue in settling the case and recommend that their determination as to whether or not the case provided recovery funds for future medicals (emphasis added) be documented in their records. Should they determine that future services are funded, these dollars must be used to pay for future otherwise Medicare covered case-related services. There is no formal CMS review process in the liability arena as there is for worker’s compensation. On rare occasions, when the liability is large enough or other unusual facts exist within the case, the CMS Regional Office will review the settlement and help make a determination on the amount to be available for future services.”

s Anticipated Impact of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007. The likely outcome of the reporting requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 is that insurance companies will begin to require MSAs in third party liability cases. There is no reason for insurance companies to run the risk of failing to establish an MSA.

The Theory Behind a Medicare Set Aside Arrangement.

s Contrived Shift. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, Medicare makes conditional payment for medical expenses for beneficiaries with the understanding that Medicare will be paid when the beneficiary receives payment from a third party. Medicare is opposed to any settlement that results in a contrived shift to Medicare of responsibilities of a claimant’s future medical care. In settling claims, Medicare’s interest must be considered. The solution to the problem of burden shifting is to establish a Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement (MSA).

s Past and Future Medical Bills. Medicare has a right of recovery for past medical bills up to the date of the settlement. The Medicare Secondary Payer Act also applies to third party liability situations in which the settlement or award includes payment for future medical expenses. Medicare is not bound by the release with respect to an allocation for future medical expenses. If Medicare determines that the injured party will have future medical expenses then a Medicare Set-Aside Arrangement is expected.


When is an MSA Required?

While the MSPA clearly establishes a requirement that Medicare’s interest be considered in liability cases, there are no rules or regulations under the MSPA. While there are no rules in Worker’s Compensation (WC) cases either, CMS has issued memos advising the establishment of MSA’s in WC cases, but there are no requirements. Obtaining CMS’ approval of a proposed MSA does provide assurance to the parties that the set aside amount is acceptable to CMS. The prudent course of action might be to follow those in liability cases. While an MSA is always required, it is not necessary to submit an MSA proposal to CMS:
• the settlement exceeds $25,000 and the claimant is currently
eligible for Medicare; or
• the settlement is for more than $250,000 and the plaintiff can
reasonably be expected to become eligible for Medicaid
within 30 months.
If an individual is in the process of filing, appealing or re-filing for SSDI, that person is included in the 30-month window notwithstanding the fact that a previous application may have been denied and have not been appealed. An individual who is 62 years and 6 months of age could be eligible within 30 months, and an individual suffering from End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), but who does not yet qualify for Medicare based on ESRD, would also be considered a person having a “reasonable expectation” of Medicare enrollment within 30 months.
If it is absolutely clear that there will be no future medicals as a result of the injury subject to the litigation, then no MSA is required.
It is important to note that a beneficiary may not waive his right to future Medicare in order to avoid establishing an MSA.
In determining whether the $250,000 threshold is met, if there is a structured settlement the value of the structure rather than the cost is used. Also, in determining whether the $250,000 threshold is met, past medicals, future medicals, attorney’s fees and costs are included.

What is the Risk to the Personal Injury Attorney for Failing to Establish an MSA?

s Double Damages. Plaintiff’s attorneys who fail Medicare’s interest are potentially responsible for double damages. CMS is authorized to bring an action “against any entity” including a beneficiary, provider, supplier, physician, attorney, state agency or private insurer that has received any portion of a third party payment directly or indirectly, if those third party funds – rather than Medicare – should have been paid for the injury-related medical expenses.

0.
s Potential Malpractice. In addition, there is a malpractice risk. Plaintiffs who have not established an MSA and who file future claims for Medicare may have those claims denied. CMS has taken the position that where no MSA has been established, the entire settlement can be considered for future medicals and Medicare will not pay the plaintiff’s medical bills until an amount equal to the entire settlement has been spent for the plaintiff’s medical care. Each personal injury attorney must decide how much risk he or she is willing to accept in order to avoid establishing an MSA.

How is the Set-Aside Amount Determined?

There are companies who will calculate the set-aside amount. The amount is determined by evaluating past medical treatment, current medical condition, and the probability of future medical needs, as well as other factors. Future medicals are limited only to those expenses that Medicare would pay that are related to the injury. Medicare does not pay all medical expenses. There are some services that are not covered; there are deductibles, co-payments and maximums per spell of illness. The MSA need not contain monies for those services that would not be covered by Medicare. In calculating the set-aside amount the plaintiff’s life expectancy is considered. It is often useful to obtain a rated age as a part of this process. The rated age shows that a person’s actual life expectancy may be considerably shorter than their actuarially life expectancy, so that less money is required to be set aside.
Once a Medicare Set-Aside amount is calculated in a worker’s compensation case, it is submitted to Medicare for approval. While CMS maintains that a set-aside is necessary in liability cases, there is no mechanism for approval at this time.
CMS is not bound by an allocation for future medicals made by the parties in the settlement agreement. CMS may disregard any such allocation and make its own calculation as to the cost of future medicals.
The cost of future prescription drugs must be considered in calculating the set-aside amount.

Administering the MSA.

There are four possibilities for administering an MSA:
s Self-Administered Accounts. These accounts are usually small accounts and are administered by the claimant. No formal agreement is necessary. The claimant must follow the same accounting rules as a professional administrator, but it is likely that most claimants will not comply, but the liability of the personal injury lawyer should terminate when the MSA is established.

s Custodial Account. A larger account is usually administered by a custodian. These are professional organizations that have expertise in medical claims administration. They charge a fee and are recommended where financially justified.

s Medicare Set-Aside Trusts. A Medicare Set-Aside Trust is a formal trust with a trustee. These are usually used for large accounts. They are also used in connection with Special Needs Trusts if the plaintiff is receiving means-tested public benefits such as SSI, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Veterans Benefits or Section 8 Housing.

s Pooled Trusts. In smaller cases where the plaintiff is receiving any of these means-tested public benefits, a Pooled Trust may be considered. A Pooled Trust is operated by a non-profit. The plaintiff’s money is pooled with other persons’ money for investment purposes, but each member has an individual sub-account. Whenever a trust or a Pooled Trust is used, a sub-trust is established for the Medicare Set-Aside funds.

Chart
No Public Benefits Public Benefits
Small Settlement
Self Administered

Pooled Trust
Large Settlement

Custodial Agreement/ Professional Administrator
Stand Alone Special Needs Trust
Note: As used above the term “Public Benefits” applies to only means tested public benefits where there are financial eligibility rules pertaining to income and/or assets of the beneficiary and/or his or her family or household. These benefits typically include SSI, Medicaid, Veteran’s Benefits, Section 8 Housing and Food Stamps. For purposes of the chart, public benefits does not only include SSDI and Medicare, but a MSA will always be required if the plaintiff is receiving or will receive these benefits.

How does a Structured Settlement fit into an MSA?

s Seed Money. An MSA must include seed money with is a cash amount equal to the amount of monies calculated to cover the first surgery procedure and/or replacement and two years of annual payments.
0.
s Structured Settlement. If there is a sizable MSA, the balance is usually funded with a structured settlement. The structured settlement is usually payable in annual installments. The remainder of the Set-Aside is divided by the remainder of the claimant’s life expectancy and the structured pays annual deposits into the MSA based on a “anniversary date” which cannot be more than one year after the settlement date. If the funds paid into the MSA from the structured settlement are exhausted before the next “anniversary date” Medicare pays until such time as the next structured settlement payment is received
0.

Recommendations for Personal Injury Attorneys.
• Recommendations for Personal Injury Attorneys wanting to protect themselves against the risk of future claims by Medicare or malpractice claims by clients are as follows:
0.
• Since no rules currently exist for third party liability cases,
follow the WC rules with respect to MSA.
• Arrange for the calculation of a Medicare Set-Aside amount.
• Submit the proposal to CMS. It is unlikely that CMS will respond,
but the personal injury attorney should be off the hook so far as his
or her obligation to consider Medicare’s interests.
• Establish an MSA and fund it with the amount calculated.
• Advise the plaintiff in writing with respect to the rules.
• Advise the client in writing of the potential for the denial of future
medical care coverage for the injury subject to the litigation.
• Paper your file.

__________________________________________
42 U.S.C.§1395y(b)(2); 42 CFR §46(d)(d)
2 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(A)(ii)
3 42 U.S.C.§1395y(b)(2)(B)
4 42 U.S. C. 1305, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
5 Sally Stalcup, Region 6 MSP Regional coordinator
6 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii); 42 CFR §411.24
7 Medicare Set Aside Arrangements Transmittal (Patel Memo), July 23, 2001; Medicare Secondary Payer – Worker’s Compensation (WC) frequently Asked Questions; (undated) Thomas L. Grissom; Medicare Secondary Payer-Worker’s Compensation (WC) information May 7, 2004; Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)-Worker’s Compensation (WC) additional frequently asked questions, May 23, 2003; Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Worker’s Compensation (WC) additional frequently asked questions, October 15, 2004; Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Worker’s Compensation (WC) additional frequently asked questions July 11, 2005; Part D and Worker’s Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements questions and answers, December 30, 2005; Worker’s Compensation Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements (WCMSAs) and revision of the Low Dollar Threshold for Medicare beneficiaries, October 25, 2006; Questions and Answers for Part D and Worker’s Compensation Medicare-Set Aside Arrangements, July 24, 2006
8 Medicare Set Aside Arrangements Transmittal (Patel Memo), July 23, 2001
9 Medicare Secondary Payer-Worker’s Compensation (WC) frequently asked questions (2)
10 Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)- Worker’s Compensation (WC) additional frequently asked questions, May 23, 2003
11 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3); 42 CFR§411.24(c)(2)
12 Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP)-Worker’s Compensation (WC) additional frequently asked questions A-5, October 15, 2004
13 Id
0.
__________________________________________

Quick Screen
Medicare Set-Aside Arrangements

Is the client receiving SSI or SSD at the time of settlement? □ Yes □ No

Has the client applied for SSDI, or has client applied and been denied but anticipates appealing the decision? □ Yes □ No

Is client in the process of appealing and/or refilling for SSDI benefits? □ Yes □ No

Is client age 62 years 6 months of age or older at the time of settlement □ Yes □ No

Does client suffer from end stage renal disease but does not yet qualify for Medicare based on ESRD? □ Yes □ No

Is the settlement in excess of $250,000? □ Yes □ No
Note: If client is already receiving Medicare, the threshold is $25,000.
Copyright 2009 by Begley & Bookbinder, P.C., an Elder & Disability Law Firm with offices in Moorestown, Stone Harbor and Lawrenceville, New Jersey and Oxford Valley, Pennsylvania and can be contacted at 800-533-7227. The firm services southern and central New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. Tom Begley Jr. is one of the speakers with Kenneth Vercammen at the NJ State Bar Association's Annual Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law and co-author with Kenneth Vercammen, martin Spigner and Kathleen Sheridan of the 400 plus page book on Elder Law.
The Firm provides services in connection with protecting assets from nursing home costs, Medicaid applications, Estate Planning and Estate Administration, Special Needs Planning and Guardianships. If you have a legal problem in one of these areas of law, contact Begley & Bookbinder at 800-533-722


2. NUTS & BOLTS OF ELDER LAW & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM
Pines Manor, Edison

Featuring:
THOMAS D. BEGLEY, JR., ESQ.,
2004 Clapp Laureate
Certified as an Elder Law Attorney by the ABA Accredited National Elder Law Foundation
Past Chair, NJSBA Elder & Disability Law Section
Author: "How to Develop and Manage a Successful Trusts & Estates/Elder Law
Practice" (NJICLE)
Co-Author: "Profitable Law Firm Management" (NJICLE)
Begley & Bookbinder, PC (Moorestown)

KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.
Chair, ABA General Practice Division Elder Law Committee
2006 NJSBA Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year
K. Vercammen & Associates (Edison)

KATHLEEN A. SHERIDAN, ESQ.
Law Offices of Kathleen A. Sheridan, PC (Ship Bottom)

MARTIN A. SPIGNER, ESQ.
M. Spigner, PC (Cranbury)

Elder law continues to offer the legal profession a booming opportunity for growth. As your current clients continue to grow older, you need to position yourself to be able to offer them and their families the legal services required by the elderly in today’s society. Or, you may be looking for lucrative areas in which to expand your current practice, including administering their estates.
This practical program is designed to provide the nuts and bolts of elder law practice & estate administration practice to general practitioners and young lawyers, as well as to more experienced lawyers seeking to expand into this field. A highly authoritative and experienced panel of elder law attorneys & estate planners will share proven techniques and experience it would take you years to gather on your own. You’ll also gain insight on how Federal Medicaid Reform will impact your practice. Register today!
Everything you need to know about elder law & estate administration including:
• Why Have a Will? 
Gathering information; standard provisions; designation of fiduciaries; protective clauses; sample forms; Ethics - who is the client?
• Powers of Attorney 
Types of POAs; what should be included; why clients need them; POAs and Living Wills; sample forms
• Living Trusts (Revocable/Irrevocable) as an Estate Planning Tool 
Why it should be used; disadvantages; revocable vs. irrevocable; Insurance Trusts; sample forms
• Basic Tax Considerations Jointly-held property; “I love you” Will; no Will at all; insurance owned by client; unlimited marital deduction; estate planning in the testamentary document; 
sample forms/letters
• Estate Administration - New Probate Law in New Jersey Probate process; duties of executor/fiduciary; gathering of assets; tax returns; tax waivers; access to property; sample forms/checklists
• Medicaid Planning in Light of Federal Medicaid Reform Countable assets of Medicaid applicant; income cap/Medical needy standard; look-back period; transfers of property; personal residence; Medicaid estate recovery rules
 …and more


Tuition fees Reg. Fee Reg. Type
General Tuition (REG) $159.00 REG
NJICLE Season Tickets (STX) 1 Season Ticket(s) STX
MEMBERS, CO-SPONSORING SECTION (COS*) $119.00 COS*
MEMBERS, NJSBA (NJB*) $129.00 NJB*
MEMBERS, NJSBA YLD (YLD*) $119.00 YLD*
Recent admittees (past 2 years) (YL) $135.00 YL
Paralegals (PAR) $109.00 PAR
Law Students (with Student ID) (STU) $0.00 STU
Full Time Judges (JUD) $0.00 JU


NUTS & BOLTS OF ELDER LAW & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION
Audio packages are available 2 weeks after the last date of the seminar.


New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 
The non-profit continuing education service of: 
The New Jersey State Bar Association Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey Seton Hall University 
One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520 
Phone: (732)214-8500 Fax: (732)249-0383 • CustomerService@njicle.com


3. Elder Law, Estate Planning & Probate- New ideas to expand & excel your practice Sat. August 1, 2009 2:00pm -3:30pm
ABA Annual meeting Chicago

Speakers: Jay Foonberg, Esq. - Author of Best Sellers "How to
Start and Build a Law Practice" and "How to get and keep good clients', Beverly Hills, CA
Joan Burda, Esq.
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. - co-author "Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law", Edison, NJ

Charles Sabatino, director of the ABA's Commission on Law & Aging

Parag Patel, Esq. Iselin, NJ

Elder Law program Primary Sponsors: General Practice Section
Co-sponsors: ABA Commission on Law & Aging, Health Law Section,
YLD, Senior Lawyers Division, Real Probate & Trust Section, Tax Law Section

Topics:
Forms you can use
Email newsletters
"Representing seniors- Doing well by doing good.-Do you know how?
Marketing with written fee agreements
-Ethics and marketing without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct

Elder Law may be the biggest practice area of your career. There are 50,000 baby boomers/ day turning 60 and soon to be on Social Security and will need legal advise. Elder Law is one of the biggest growth fields.


_______________________

WE PUBLISH YOUR FORMS AND ARTICLES


To help your practice, we feature in this newsletter edition a few forms and articles PLUS tips on marketing and improving service to clients. But your Editor and chairs can't do it all. Please mail articles, suggestions or ideas you wish to share with others in our Tort and Insurance Committee.

Let us know if you are finding any useful information or anything you can share with the other members. You will receive written credit as the source and thus you can advise your clients and friends you were published in an ABA publication. We will try to meet you needs.

Send Us Your Marketing Tips
We are increasing the frequency of our newsletter. Send us your short tips on your great or new successful marketing techniques.
You can become a published ABA author. Enjoy your many ABA benefits.


Send us your articles & ideas

To help your practice, we feature in this newsletter edition a few articles and tips on marketing and improving service to clients. But your Editor and chairs can't do it all. Please send articles, suggestions or ideas you wish to share with others.


Who We Are- ABA GP Solo ELDER LAW COMMITTEE

This committee focuses on improving estate planning skills, substantive law knowledge and office procedures for the attorney who practices estate planning, probate and trust law. This committee also serves as a network resource in educating attorneys regarding Elder Law situations.

To help your practice, we feature in this newsletter edition a few articles and tips on marketing and improving service to clients. But your Editor and chairs can't do it all. Please send articles, suggestions or ideas you wish to share with others.
Let us know if you are finding any useful information or anything you can share with the other members. You will receive written credit as the source and thus you can advise your clients and friends you were published in an ABA publication. We will try to meet you needs.
We also seek articles on Elder Law, Probate, Wills, Medicaid and Marketing. Please send your marketing ideas and articles to us. You can become a published ABA author.

________________________________________

The Elder Law Committee of the ABA General Practice Division is directed towards general practitioners and more experienced elder law attorneys. The committee consistently sponsors programs at the Annual Meeting, the focus of which is shifting to advanced topics for the more experienced elder lawyer.
This committee also focuses on improving estate planning skills, substantive law knowledge and office procedures for the attorney who practices estate planning, probate and trust law. This committee also serves as a network resource in educating attorneys regarding Elder Law situations.
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. co-Chair
Jay Foonberg, Beverly Hills Co-chair, Author of Best Sellers "How to Start and Build a Law Practice" and "How to get and keep good clients', Beverly Hills, CA JayFoonberg@aol.com>

We will also provide tips on how to promote your law office, your practice and Personal Marketing Skills in general. It does not deal with government funded "legal services" for indigent, welfare cases.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
Kenv@njlaws.com
Central Jersey Elder Law www.centraljerseyelderlaw.com
NJ Elder Blog http://elder-law.blogspot.com/