Category Archives: will, estate, trust, elder, contest, fiduciary, decedent, intent, disability, conservatorship, elder abuse, elder protection, trustee, beneficiary, executor

California Attorney General Office Information On Elder and Nursing Home Abuse

Posted on by

The following information is provided by the California Attorney General Office, see, e.g., http://oag.ca.gov/bmfea/elder. The numbers all point to staggering statistics, and the following information is only for reported cases – as I have previously written, the information available indicates that cases of abuse very significantly outnumber the reported cases, perhaps by a 24 to 1 ratio.

Elder Abuse

      • The United States Census Bureau projected in 2000 that California’s elderly population will have doubled by 2025 to 6.4 million – a larger growth rate than any other state
      • The California Department of Finance projects that the number of California residents aged 65 and older–those who are most likely to need nursing homes or other long term care–will nearly double between 2010 and 2030.
      • About 110,000 Californians live in about 1,300 licensed nursing homes and about 150,000 live in about 7,500 licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. Another 150,000 or more Californians are estimated to live in unlicensed assisted living facilities that may or may not be able to care for them properly.
      • Many residents of both licensed and unlicensed facilities suffer from dementia and may be given dangerous antipsychotic drugs to sedate or restrain them improperly
      • In 2009 the California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes reported that 13% of all complaints to the California Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman involved abuse, gross neglect, or exploitation, over twice the national rate of 5%
    • The California State Department of Finance claims that the number of California residents age 85 and older – those who are most likely to need nursing homes — will nearly double by the year 2030, when the bulk of baby boomers will come of age.
    • In 2005, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development reported that one-fifth of California’s nursing facilities did not meet state-mandated requirements for staffing levels.
    • In 2006, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that twice as many of California’s 115,000 plus residents are placed in physical restraints as are nationally.
    • From 2001 to 2005, the California Department of Health Care Services, found that two-thirds of all reported deficiencies caused or could have caused significant harm to one of more residents in nursing homes. More than half of all complaints in nursing homes are related to poor quality of care. Eighteen percent of substantiated complaints were related to mistreatment or abuse.

Together, these staggering statistics and projections illustrate the urgent need to address and remedy the poor quality of care in many of California’s skilled nursing facilities.

Facilities Enforcement Team

The Facilities Enforcement Team investigates and prosecutes corporate entities, such as skilled nursing homes, hospitals, and residential care facilities, for adopting policies or promoting practices that lead to neglect and/or poor quality of care. Institutional neglect or substandard care includes:

  • Failure to provide medical care for physical and mental health needs
  • Failure to attend to hygiene concerns
  • Failure to provide adequate staffing
  • Failure to prevent malnutrition and dehydration
  • Falsification of patient chartsThe primary goal of the Operation Guardians program is to help protect and improve the quality of care for California’s elder and dependent adult residents residing in California’s approximately 1300 skilled nursing facilities. The Operation Guardians team identifies instances of abuse or neglect for further investigation and possible criminal or civil prosecution by the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse.
  • Operation Guardians
Fraud: 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15
Criminal Filings 75 60 63 59 94
Convictions 58 46 35 32 56
Acquittals 3 1 0 0 2
Criminal Restitution $504,403 $279,228 $542,962 $180,017 $378,765
Civil Monetary Recoveries $6,145 $0 $0 $0 $0

 

San Mateo County’s New Elder and Dependent Adult Protection Team – The Good and the Insufficient

Posted on by

You may have heard that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors this month passed a resolution funding the Elder and Dependent Adult Protection Team “EDAPT” (also sometimes known as or similar to “FAST” or “Financial Abuse Specialist Team” in other counties such as Los Angeles) for two years from the County’s Measure A funding. The initiative is funded with approximately $3.13 million taxpayer dollars over two years with the funding to begin July 1, 2015 and will run through June 2017. Click here for the link. The comments in this blog are my own. As you may know, I have handled trust, estate, conservatorship and elder abuse litigation cases for over 20 years. I have become a bit more expressive or activist in my comments. These comments are not criticisms of anyone who is trying to combat elder and dependent adult abuse. But the fact is that resources are inadequate to identify and then to stop and remedy abuse. And although resources will always be inadequate, one resource, private attorneys, is entirely or almost entirely unutilized in this battle. Until entities that receive reports of abuse arrange for a procedure to refer cases to private attorneys there is absolutely no way that those agencies, including Adult Protective Services (APS), the District Attorney, the police, county counsel, etc. can come close to protecting the abused and remedying the damages that they suffer. In fact, the link above seems to indicate that the new EDAPT initiative is primarily a community educational program, which does not involve legal or court system remedies.

Let me provide you with a quick example that should help to explain the situation and the grossly inadequate resources. The Link above states “Research shows that for every one case of older adult abuse [note that this apparently does not include dependent adult abuse] that is reported – there are another 24 that go unreported.”  The link also states “Reports of older adult abuse have been on the rise as the county’s older adult population continues to grow – which is estimated to grow by over 70% by 2030.” I don’t know how many incidents of abuse Adult Protective Services receives in an average month in San Mateo County – maybe one of my readers will respond with the average monthly number. Let’s just say that in an average month APS receives 30 reports of elder or older adult abuse (again, we are not even counting the additional cases of dependent adult abuse reporting). I suspect that the reports exceed 30 per month; however, if research indicates that for every report of older abuse there are another 24 that go unreported, that would be 30 x 25, or 750 incidents of adult abuse in an average month. Do you know how much time and effort it takes to stop and then remedy just one case of elder abuse through the court system? Well . . . that number does vary from case to case, but I can tell you that based on my experience in my cases, the number of hours is huge and the time (i.e., months or even years) that it can take also can be staggering. I can also fully confirm that abusers actively fight legal actions that are brought against them. They know or believe that resources are limited and inadequate, and that they might stand a reasonable chance of beating the system.

The new initiative is for two years, at an average funding of roughly $1.5 million per year. The funding started July 1, 2015, so we already have 3 months done in the first year of the initiative. I have been looking for a detailed two-year plan for the initiative – perhaps one of my readers can tell me where I can find that plan. I have written and videoed about this topic before, and the inadequate resources. Again, I fully support the efforts of everyone who is fighting elder and dependent adult abuse, but let me say that resources are inadequate, and you really, really need to bring vetted private attorneys into the effort through referrals or by whatever means makes the report receiving agencies (i.e., APS, etc.) comfortable.

Best, Dave Tate, Esq. (and licensed inactive CPA), San Mateo County, San Francisco Bay Area, and throughout California

FBI raids California nursing home – from the Sacramento Bee

Posted on by

The following is a link to a story by the Sacramento Bee about the FBI raid of a California nursing home over issues of alleged abuse. Click on the following link for the article, CLICK HERE.

The article provides relatively little detail; however, I did find the discussion about abuse reporting, or the lack thereof, interesting. I provided a talk about mandated reporters earlier this year for the Professional Fiduciary Association of California. Mandated elder abuse reporting is important, but you certainly do not see many discussions about it in the news. You can find the statutory reporting provisions at California Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15630-15632, pertaining to both physical and financial abuse, and for care provider and financial institution reporters.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California.

Elder Abuse In Australia On The Rise – Government Makes A $100 Million Pledge

Posted on by

Click on the following link for an article out of Australia, elder abuse is domestic violence and is on the rise – the government makes a $100 million pledge: Click Here For The Article

AU Elder Abuse Article

Updated Elder Abuse and Protection Presentation Slides – Please Read and Forward

Posted on by

I have provided below a link to a PDF of my October 12, 2015, updated elder and dependent adult abuse and protection presentation slides. The slides are extensive. This is an important topic – and the resources are not sufficient to prevent or remedy the problem.

Please read and also forward this post and the materials to other people who would be interested. Click on the following link for the PDF and slides, ELDER ABUSE AND PROTECTION 10122015 FINAL

You can also find other discussions about this topic on other blog posts.

Thank you. Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California

The New California End of Life Option Act – Undue Influence Is Listed 5 Times

Posted on by

Click on the following link for a copy of the new California End of Life Option Act, End of Life Option Act. I’m just spotting elder and dependent adult abuse issues here – I’m not discussing political, religious, personal, ethical or other issues.

The Act proposes to include protections to ensure that a person who uses the Act is not being unduly influenced. Obviously undue influence, duress, fraud, etc. are concerns in any situation. By my count undue influence is listed 5 times in the Act, so it is an obvious concern. You can match that concern with similar efforts to influence an elder’s estate planning or gifting, and also with the new California revocable transfer on death deed which I discuss at this prior blog post http://wp.me/p1wbl8-cI.

Having an outside third person, as the Act provides, assert that the person using the Act hasn’t been unduly influenced is not necessarily trustworthy as the third person has not been personally present to observe and hear what influence, fraud or duress, if any, has been attempted, including simply negative statements about how awful or useless life has become.

I have also seen situations where it was thought that a person was ill or injured, and would die, only to find out later that the cause was improper medications or some other undiagnosed reason, and the person recovered with proper diagnosis and treatment.

As I said, I’m just spotting issues here. People need to be vigilant.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and throughout California, http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

Elder Abuse Protection Collaboration – Private Attorneys Needed, Updated Elder Abuse Slides Coming

Posted on by

Just some quick thoughts for this Friday morning.

I am seeing more materials and promotions by organizations reporting and combating elder abuse. All of that is for the good and obviously is encouraged and a lot more is needed. The efforts primarily involve spotting elder abuse and reporting to law enforcement, adult protective services or some other governmental entity. I’m also seeing more proposals to have or to offer to have a written form allowing a client to authorize an organization to contact a specific person, such as a spouse or other family member, if the organization believes that the client is being subjected to elder abuse. The written authorization is a good step in the right direction. But let me also tell you, and this comes from years of experience, you must have collaboration with private attorneys to combat and remedy elder abuse. This isn’t a negative comment – it’s just a fact that there will never be sufficient government and APS resources to combat and remedy the numbers of cases of elder abuse and the time and expertise that it takes to handle these cases. Collaboration with private attorneys is needed. I prepared a short blog post video on this in April 2015, which you can see on the following link (note, this video is prepared prior to recent equipment and presentation improvements), http://wp.me/p1wbl8-aT

I am also updating my elder abuse presentation slides, which I last posted in May of this year. I will post the updated slides in a couple of days, so do stay in touch.

Have a very good Friday, and weekend.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California), http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

New Law Allows Motions For Summary Adjudication On Additional Grounds

Posted on by

This is a post that most likely will interest only attorneys, but I post it anyway.

California AB 1141 has made several changes in law including a change to the provisions governing motions for summary adjudication, where a party can motion the Court to determine whether or not a party has a claim and can proceed with his or her case. AB 1141 now allows the parties to bring a motion for summary adjudication even if the motion if granted would not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty. In other words, AB 1141 moves some of the motion for summary adjudication provisions back closer to where they used to be. The following is a summary from the Legislative Counsel’s Digest relative to the changes pertaining to motions for summary adjudication.

(1) Existing law authorizes a party, pursuant to a specified procedure, to move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to it and to move for summary adjudication as to certain issues in the action or proceeding. Existing law provides that a motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty.

This bill would allow a motion for summary adjudication that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty if the parties whose claims or defenses are put at issue by the motion jointly stipulate as to the issue or issues to be adjudicated and declare that a ruling on the motion would further the interest of judicial economy. This bill would also prescribe the contents of, and signatories to, the notice of motion, among other provisions.

Dave Tate, Esq., San Francisco and California, blog: http://californiaestatetrust.com

 

The Stock Market Dropped Today – Trustee Portfolio Investment Strategy Risk Management – Very Relevant Now And Always

Posted on by

The following post is updated from a prior post – this topic is always relevant, including in today’s environment.

The stock market dropped today.

A trustee needs a portfolio investment strategy in keeping with the terms of the trust and legal requirements.

In pertinent part California Probate Code section 16047(b) provides:

“A trustee’s investment and management decisions respecting individual assets and courses of action must be evaluated not in isolation, but in the context of the trust portfolio as a whole and as a part of an overall investment strategy having risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the trust.”

In discussing circumstances that are appropriate to consider in investing and managing trust liabilities section 16047(c)(4) also lists the role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.

You should read section 16047 in its entirety, in addition to the terms of the trust and other applicable statutory and case law; however, the point is that a trustee needs to have a portfolio investment strategy. California Probate Code sections 16046-16048 are copied and pasted below at the bottom of this blog post.

And there is another very important reason to have a portfolio investment strategy. Investments will naturally increase and decrease in value over time, and even daily. Although facts and circumstances in each different situation will vary, assuming that there is a portfolio investment strategy and that the portfolio investment strategy and other relevant facts are appropriate for the trust and the beneficiaries, as a general rule gains and losses of different investments within that portfolio investment strategy should be netted such that the trustee gets the benefit of both gains and losses if there is an assertion or claim that the trustee breached his or her management and investment fiduciary duties. Whereas, if there is no overall portfolio investment strategy, there is more of a likelihood that the gains and losses will not be netted, and that a trustee might be chargeable with a loss in a particular investment without the benefit of gains in other investments.

And this also reinforces the need for trustees to regularly review the portfolio investment strategy and the individual investments to make sure that the investments and allocation of investments are appropriate – although gains and losses should be netted as part of an overall portfolio investment strategy, if a particular investment becomes unsuitable or unsuitable to that overall investment strategy and if time continues to pass without a reevaluation of that investment by the trustee, not immediately, but over time, and argument might arise that it might no longer be appropriate to consider that individual investment and losses or gains in that investment as part of the overall portfolio investment strategy. In that circumstance the trustee could find that a court might treat that investment as a standalone investment and also treat gains and losses in that investment in the same manner without the benefit of netting with other investments. Obviously although that situation for the trustee might turn out okay if there is a gain in that investment, it does create greater investment loss risk for the trustee. Additionally, whereas the investment might initially gain in value, is also possible that an argument might arise that a subsequent loss in that individual investment might not be netted with the prior gains in that investment.

The facts and circumstances in each situation will vary, and each situation must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of that trust and that situation. Additionally, different judges will have differing approaches to trustee investment duties and responsibilities. Nevertheless, having a portfolio investment strategy approach, and timely reviewing that strategy, the investments made, and the investment allocation within the context of the trust, the beneficiaries, statutory and case law, and the investment and economic environment will help manage and reduce trustee investment liability risk.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco / California)

California Probate Code sections 16046-16048 provide as follows:

16046. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a trustee who invests and manages trust assets owes a duty to the beneficiaries of the trust to comply with the prudent investor rule.

(b) The settlor may expand or restrict the prudent investor rule by express provisions in the trust instrument. A trustee is not liable to a beneficiary for the trustee’s good faith reliance on these express provisions.

16047. (a) A trustee shall invest and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would, by considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. In satisfying this standard, the trustee shall exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution.

(b) A trustee’s investment and management decisions respecting individual assets and courses of action must be evaluated not in isolation, but in the context of the trust portfolio as a whole and as a part of an overall investment strategy having risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the trust.

(c) Among circumstances that are appropriate to consider in investing and managing trust assets are the following, to the extent relevant to the trust or its beneficiaries:

(1) General economic conditions.

(2) The possible effect of inflation or deflation.

(3) The expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies.

(4) The role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.

(5) The expected total return from income and the appreciation of capital.

(6) Other resources of the beneficiaries known to the trustee as determined from information provided by the beneficiaries.

(7) Needs for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital.

(8) An asset’s special relationship or special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

(d) A trustee shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain facts relevant to the investment and management of trust assets.

(e) A trustee may invest in any kind of property or type of investment or engage in any course of action or investment strategy consistent with the standards of this chapter.

16048. In making and implementing investment decisions, the trustee has a duty to diversify the investments of the trust unless, under the circumstances, it is prudent not to do so.

* * * * *

Tough Stuff – Glenn Campbell Moves Back Home From Alzheimer’s Facility

Posted on by

Glenn CampbellI’m just passing this information along. The following is a link to an article about Glenn Campbell moving back home from the Alzheimer’s care facility. He is being cared for by his wife Kim. I hope/assume that they also have 24 hour caregivers.  A growing number of people are dealing with Alzheimer’s daily. Click on the following link for the article, CLICK HERE

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California). Civil and trust, estate, conservatorship/guardianship, and elder/disability litigation, and administrations.