Category Archives: General

A Trumpcare Update

Posted on by

A few months back, I posted an article about possible changes to the health care system (specifically changes to Medicaid), and the changes to the Affordable Care Act, that had been proposed by President Trump. Many things have changed since that time, including the passage of ACHA by the House of Representatives. This week, it appears that the Senate is prepared to vote on the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017”, which is the Senate’s version of health care reform. Given the fast-changing political climate, it is very possible that by the time you read this, the information will be outdated, but I think it is interesting to follow the possible course of what I believe is the program upon which most drastically effects more people in the United States than any other (Medicare is vitally important as well, and is also affected by this bill, but it is outside of the scope of this article. Medicare is also available to everyone over a certain age, where Medicaid affects almost entirely the poor, elderly and disabled).

The Senate plan would reduce federal spending on Medicaid by approximately 26% by 2026, and the overall plan would result in approximately 22 million less people being insured (about 5 million of which are on Medicaid). Medicaid covers nearly 20% of all Americans, 40% of all children and disabled and over 60% of all nursing home residents. It also pays for almost 50% of all births and long term-care (which includes things like in-home care, assisted living, etc.). The problem with Medicaid to many is that the spending by the federal government is open-ended and based on the number of enrollees in each state. Currently, Medicaid can cover as many people as are eligible, but naturally when more people are covered, it costs more. What the Senate plan will do is place a cap on the amount the federal government will spend, regardless of how many people actually need it. The spending caps would be set at the rate of inflation, which is about half of the rate of the growth of need for Medicaid, which is mostly based on the fact that the overall population is aging. Many of these changes won’t become effective for a number of years, or will be phased in, but in the next ten years the amount of spending on Medicaid will be reduced by $772 billion dollars. The end result is that states will face more pressure to provide health care for less people. The change would force states to drastically change Medicaid qualification rules, which will make planning very difficult for individuals that may or do already require long term care. It’s also likely that states will need to trade quality of care for lower costs.

It is unknown right now what the final changes to the program will be. As someone that is keenly aware of how the aging population is using the program, I know that there are some cases where great planning can put a person in a position to rely on Medicaid to provide for their long-term care, even if at some point it would’ve been possible for them to pay their own way. However, those cases are actually very rare. Most people are shielding such a small amount versus the actual cost of care that these proposed changes are extremely aggressive. There are things that could be done to change qualification rules (and are done all the time) to close “loopholes” or make qualification more selective. Those changes could be done without fundamentally altering the program that could well affect many helpless individuals.

Over the River and Through the Court to Grandmother’s House We Go

Posted on by

A recently decided Wisconsin Supreme Court case has made it easier (slightly) for grandparents, great-grandparents and stepparents to receive court-ordered visitation of their grandchildren, great-grandchildren or step-children. The case of In re Marriage of Meister, 367 Wis. 2d 447 (2016) removed a previously held rule that a grandparent, great-grandparent, or stepparent needed to prove a parent-child relationship in order to secure visitation rights under Wisconsin Statute §767.43(1). The statute provides that certain people can apply to a court for visitation rights of children. Previously, the court had decided that parents, grandparents and stepparents needed to prove a parent-child relationship. The Meister court decided on a different statutory interpretation, deciding that only “other persons” needed to prove a parent-child relationship, and the clause did not apply to grandparents, great-grandparents or stepparents. The ruling makes sense from a statutory interpretation and legislative history standpoint.

I mentioned earlier that this ruling made it only slightly easier for grandparents to be granted visitation rights. This is because in general, family law is not at all black and white. Of all areas of the law I’ve ever practiced in, family law is the least predictable and most prone to case-by-case analysis and guesswork. Proving a parent-child relationship, especially when each parent-child relationship varies by family, was not typically the biggest hurdle grandparents faced when trying to get visitation of their grandchildren. There are two other monumental hurdles. First, there needs to be evidence that a set visitation schedule with a non-parent is in the child’s best interest. Second, when determining the best interest, the court must give special weight to a fit parent’s opinions regarding the child’s best interest as part of any best interest determination. This requirement was first determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville: “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” 530 U.S. at 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054.

The Meister case was interesting for two reasons. First, the grandchildren, not the grandmother, were the ones that appealed. The concurring opinion noted that had the issue been brought up, the case would have been dismissed because the grandchildren didn’t have standing to appeal. The grandchildren do not have a right to ask the court to be granted grandparent visitation under this statute, so they could not appeal a ruling that denied it. The issue was not addressed by either party, and thus the court didn’t address it. Second, the grandmother actually passed away before the appeal was filed. Generally, when this happens, the case is moot (meaning there is no reason to decide it, because nobody will benefit from the ruling), and the appeal would be dismissed. However, the parties allowed the case to move forward because it is an issue that is constantly in front of courts on grandparent visitation cases. What we don’t know is whether the grandmother in this case would have actually been granted visitation or not. This case didn’t actually grant the grandmother visitation, and wouldn’t have even if she had still been alive. It merely decided she didn’t need to prove a parent-child relationship. The circuit court would have needed to decide if it was in the children’s best interest after giving special weight to the parent’s opinion.

Practically, unless there is a serious problem with one or both parents, a grandparent still has a difficult time making a case that their view of what is in a child’s best interest is correct versus a parent. In addition, a grandparent needs to consider whether their personal feelings, and set time with their grandchildren, are more important than their relationship with their own child, or their child’s spouse. I’ve never seen a case like this where the family came out on the other side unscathed. In my experience, the best interests of the child are almost never served in a courtroom.

TRUMPCARE?

Posted on by

Donald Trump is set to be inducted as the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017. One of the things he has pledged to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). The actual plan is currently unknown, but it can be safely assumed that something will change. The Affordable Care Act is a tremendously complex set of legislation and executive orders, and trying to discuss every aspect of what might change is a fool’s errand. I want to touch on possible changes to Medicaid. Medicaid is the program whereby the state, with the assistance of the federal government, provides health care for those that cannot afford it. In Wisconsin, it takes on many forms in its subprograms (e.g. Badgercare, Family Care, Institutional Long Term Care, etc.).
President Trump may be proposing to change a portion of Medicaid to provide “block grants”. Essentially, instead of the Federal Government directly funding a portion of Medicaid on an as needed basis, it would provide a specified amount of funds to each state each year, and the state would administer the programs alone. Because the federal government currently pays more for Medicaid than the state typically does, there are fears that the funds would be mismanaged by the states, or that states will pass more stringent laws to limit Medicaid eligibility. If that happens, it would likely create a gap where people who need and can’t afford health care also can’t receive it at a free or reduced cost because they don’t qualify. Proponents say that giving states autonomy will help them to reduce overall healthcare costs. Time will tell what effect any possible changes may have.

The “Cool Parents” Win

Posted on by

An interesting case was decided recently, on an issue that most Wisconsinites have
dealt with either as a young person growing up in the state, or as a
parent.  Wisconsin Courts decided
that until the State Legislature says otherwise, adults are allowed to allow underage
drinking parties at their homes.  (There
could still potentially be liability for the aftermath of said parties, but
that is a topic for a different article). Currently, state statute
does not allow a county or municipality to legislate on alcoholic beverages
unless the law strictly conforms with state law.  In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that
a county ordinance prohibiting adults from hosting underage drinking parties at
their homes was stricter than the state ordinance which prohibits said parties
at a “premises” owned by the adult.  “Premises”
is defined elsewhere in state statute as a “licensed premises” which is
generally a tavern or liquor store.  As a
result, the parents prevailed.  It seems
unlikely that the state legislature intended this result when the laws were
written, but Wisconsin does have some of the most relaxed alcohol laws in the
country.  Given the culture of drinking
by people of all ages in Wisconsin, and the unfortunate results that sometimes
occur, I believe this may be on the State’s legislative agenda in the coming
session.  This is a good example of how a
single word in a law (or document) can completely change its meaning.

Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors

Posted on by

Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors
By Attorney Nicholas J. Vlies of Lin.Liebmann LLC

On July 15, 2015, David Weil, the Wage and Hour Division Administrator, issued Administrator’s Interpretation (“AI”) No. 2015-1, which clarified the Department of Labor’s position on independent contractors. While the AI is not binding, the AI should be considered by companies that use independent contractors.

As noted in the AI, the FLSA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer” and the definition of “employ” includes “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. 203(d), (g). The AI argues that the “suffer or permit” definition was “specifically designed to ensure as broad of a scope of statutory coverage as possible.” Given the broad scope of the FLSA, the AI makes clear that “most workers are employees under the FLSA . . . .” To that end, the AI suggests that the economic realities test should be applied broadly in evaluating whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Specifically, when applying the economic realities test “each factor should be considered in light of the ultimate determination of whether the worker is really in business for him or herself . . . or is economically dependent on the employer . . . .” The AI emphasizes that the factors should not be applied mechanically and that no single factor is determinative, including the traditional “control” factor. The Wage and Hour Division’s interpretation on how to apply the economic realities test will, more times than not, result in a determination that a worker is an employee.

Given the above, employers should evaluate whether any workers should be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Moreover, employers should be cognizant of the risks associated with misclassifying workers as independent contractors.

If you have any questions regarding AI No. 2015-1 feel free to call us at 920-393-1190.