Legally Speaking - Legal Recruiter Blog

FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section on legal developments surrounding technology and the internet.

Whole body image scanning machines are designed to peer through clothing and capture three-dimensional images of individuals as if they are completely undressed. This raises a lot of questions about the impact of a citizen’s civil liberty rights and a citizen’s privacy interests.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public interest research organization that monitors federal actions to determine their impact on civil liberties and privacy interests, has wanted to find out how whole body imaging machines have been used on US citizens by the federal government.

Accordingly, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information of Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Because the DOJ did not provide the requested information, EPIC has filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In its complaint, EPIC notes that the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is responsible for the protection of the federal judiciary. EPIC specifically alleges that the USMS uses whole body image scanning technology to screen visitors at one federal court already. According to the complaint, the whole body systems operated by the USMS are the same as such systems used by other government entities, including systems the federal government intends to use to screen all air travelers in airports in the United States.

EPIC alleges that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill earlier this year that would limit the use of whole body imaging systems in airports. The bill apparently prohibits the use of this technology for primary screening purposes in airports. The bill was referred to the Senate. Nevertheless, EPIC alleges that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced plans to install in excess of 150 more whole body imagining machines in U.S. airports.

EPIC wanted to understand the government’s actual and intended use of whole body image scanning on U.S. citizens. Accordingly, EPIC submitted a request to the DOJ under the FOIA seeking agency records reflecting whole body images taken of citizens, contracts entered with respect to this technology, documents relating to the specifications of the technology, complaints regarding use of the technology, and other information. Under FOIA, the federal government must provide requested information relating to “what the government is up to” (as held by courts) so long as a specific statutory exemption does not bar disclosure.

The DOJ did not make a determination on EPIC’s FOIA request, as alleged by EPIC, so EPIC initiated one and then another administrative appeal. Because the administrative appeals did not cause the release of any requested information, EPIC ultimately filed a federal lawsuit under FOIA. EPIC argues in its lawsuit that the DOJ did not conduct an adequate search for responsive records, violated the timelines set forth in FOIA, and still has not produced any of the information sought relating to whole body imaging.

EPIC specifically seeks a court order requiring a full search of responsive records within five working days of the order and production of records within ten business days of the order. EPIC also requests its attorney’s fees and costs.

While the government apparently seeks transparency of U.S. citizens when it comes to the potential imaging of whole bodies, rendering them naked to the imaged view, the DOJ does not appear to have been very transparent at all in response to EPIC’s FOIA requests that seek to understand the government’s plans in this imaging realm. Perhaps EPIC’s lawsuit will cause the DOJ on its own to come forward with the requested information, and if not, a federal judge might require disclosure.

While it would not be surprising for actual whole body images to be withheld on privacy grounds, other information relating to whole body image plans could be very relevant for an informed citizenry to understand “what the government is up to.”

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.
This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

On October 21, 2009, several U.S. Senators introduced a proposed federal “Elder Abuse Victims Act (S. 1821)” as a “companion” Senate bill to one adopted earlier this year by a vote of 397 to 25 in the House, known as the Elder Abuse Victims Act (H.R. 448), introduced by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA). It appears that key provisions of this legislation have become enfolded into the pending Health Care Reform bill under consideration in the Senate.

On September 21st, Congressman Sestak had urged Senate action in response to the previous House adoption of H.R. 448 on February 11, 2009. See: Press Release, Congressman Sestak Recognizes World Alzheimer’s Day (09/21/09).

This is Senate Bill 1821’s Summary according to GovTrack:
A bill to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and activities to aid victims of elder abuse, to provide training to prosecutors and other law enforcement related to elder abuse prevention and protection, to establish programs that provide for emergency crisis response teams to combat elder abuse, and for other purposes.

 
A Press Release (10/21/09) issued by the office of Senator Patrick Leahy listed the key Senate sponsors and noted the need for such legislation:
Today Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chairwoman of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, and Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) introduced the Elder Abuse Victims Act, a bill that would improve the law enforcement community’s ability to target and combat abuse and exploitation of senior citizens.

A companion to the Elder Abuse Victims Act (H.R. 448), introduced by Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA), was passed earlier this year by a vote of 397 to 25 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“For years, Congress has failed to take concrete action to address the consequences of elder abuse, and that must change,” said Senator Kohl. “With this bill, we hope to help local enforcement agencies and other advocates tackle the often-hidden scourge of elder abuse.” * * *
That Press Release summarized the key provisions of the Senate’s proposed Elder Abuse Victims Act:
• Stipulates that elder abuse includes mail, telemarketing, and Internet fraud aimed at elderly people;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder abuse as knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm, or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm;
• Seeks to develop a common definition of elder exploitation as fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper acts or processes of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets; and
• Funds creation of positions within State courts, prosecutors’ offices or State Medicaid Fraud Control Units to coordinate elder justice-related cases, training, technical assistance, and policy development for State prosecutors and courts.

Thus, Senate Bill 1821 was one response to Sestak’s call for action. But the response in the Senate may have extended far beyond it, into the pending, sweeping health care reform bill to be subject to debate in the Senate. See: Health Care Reform Bill Moves to Senate Floor for Debate (11/22/09), published by U.S. News & World Report, which noted:
Senate Democrats managed to push health care reform legislation past a key hurdle on Saturday night, with a cloture vote that will lead to a debate on the Senate floor later this month, the Associated Press reported. * * *

“Elder justice” and “elder abuse” proposals in Congress began in the early years of this decade; but none has become law, despite broad-based, non-profit organizations supporting such legislation through political coalitions. See: EE&F Law Blog postings Federal “Elder Abuse Victims Act” Reintroduced (02/20/09), and Federal “Elder Justice” Acts Appear Elusive (09/12/08). See also: Transcript of Hearing on June 18, 2002 before the Senate’s Committee on Finance, “Elder Justice: Protecting Seniors from Abuse and Neglect” (PDF, 74 pages).

Now, in the most recent version of the Senate’s proposed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590)” (PDF, 2074 pages!), I find a Subtitle H entitled “Elder Justice Act” under under Title VI (”Transparency and Program Integrity”), consisting of three sections — Sections 6701 through 6703, which begin at page 1798.

H.R. 3590 in the 111th Congress, as amended from time to time, can be accessed through the Thomas Legislative Information Service, of the Library of Congress.

That subtitle “may be cited as the ‘Elder Justice Act of 2009′” per Section 6701.

It appears that prior federal “elder justice” and “elder abuse” proposals have been enfolded into the pending health care legislation that would reorder health care delivery nationally.

The definition of “elder” under the legislation is “an individual age 60 or older” according to Section 6702.

Regarding such elders, the bill would amend the Social Security Act to introduce into federal law the concept of “Elder Justice,” defined as:
(A) from a societal perspective, efforts to — (i) prevent, detect, treat, intervene in, and prosecute elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and (ii) protect elders with diminished capacity while maximizing their autonomy; and (B) from an individual perspective, the recognition of an elder’s rights, including the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

“Abuse” would be defined as: “The knowing infliction of physical or psychological harm or the knowing deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to meet essential needs or to avoid physical or psychological harm.”

“Exploitation” would be defined as “the fraudulent or otherwise illegal, unauthorized, or improper act or process of an individual, including a caregiver or fiduciary, that uses the resources of an elder for monetary or personal benefit, profit, or gain, or that results in depriving an elder of rightful access to, or use of, benefits, resources, belongings, or assets.”

A “fiduciary” would be “a person or entity with the legal responsibility — (i) to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of another person; and (ii) to act in good faith and with fairness.” It would include “a trustee, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an agent under a financial power of attorney or health care power of attorney, or a representative payee.”

To review the status of “elder justice,” the proposal would create a new Elder Justice Coordinating Council, consisting of high federal officials, including the Attorney General. See: Pages 1808-1811.

There would also be created a new Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation to “create short- and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plans for the development of the field of elder justice and to make recommendations to the Elder Justice Coordinating Council established under section 2021.” See: Pages 1811-1818.

These activities would be funded with $6.5 Million in 2011, and $7 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1818 & 1819.

The proposal provides for grants to be made to Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Forensic Centers, and funds them to the extent of $20 Million in 2011, $17.5 Million in 2012, and $15 Million annually in 2013 and 2014. See: Pages 1821-1830.

In addition, funding would be provided for “State and local adult protective services offices that investigate reports of the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders” at the levels of $3 Million in 2011 and $4 Million annually in 2012 through 2014. See: Pages 1830 & 1831.

There would be created an “adult protective services grant program under which the Secretary shall annually award grants to States * * * for the purposes of enhancing adult protective services provided by States and local units of government.”

The current version of H.R. 3590 to be debated in the Senate would also create a Long-term Care Ombudsman Program and a National Training Institute for Federal and State surveyors. These initiatives, too, would be funded significantly through 2014.

Whether these provisions in the controversial H.R. 3590 will survive, I don’t know. But the fact of their inclusion for debate and consideration is a monumental step forward in federal involvement to curb elder abuse and enhance elder justice.

Update: 11/23/09:

An article was posted November 23, 2009, by the Kaiser Health News, entitled Congress Targets Senior Abuse, by Rick Schmitt (also published in The Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun on the same date).

The author highlighted the Elder Justice Act aspects of the pending health care reform bill presently in the Senate for consideration:
The Senate is considering an even more expansive Elder Justice Act. It would boost federal aid for identifying and investigating elder abuse at the state and local levels, require long-term care providers to report possible crimes to federal authorities and create new oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services for coordinating state and federal anti-abuse efforts.

These provisions, already approved by the Senate Finance Committee, are included in the health legislation that is being prepared for floor debate after Thanksgiving. With broad support in and out of Congress, at least some of the measures appear to have good prospects for being enacted into law.

More than 500 advocacy groups have lined up behind the legislation. It still faces opposition on budget grounds, although proponents say the cost of the Elder Justice Act — about $757 million over four years — is pocket change in the context of a near $1-trillion healthcare bill. * * *
The article is lengthy, offers personal examples of elder abuse, and engages in a political analysis about inclusion of Elder Justice Act provisions into the health care reform legislation.

Economics now appears to drive inclusion of such federal protections for senior citizens:
Supporters say elder abuse should be addressed in healthcare overhaul legislation because it pushes up healthcare costs and because financial exploitation of the elderly leaves many destitute and reliant on public assistance.

“This is prevention, which is a healthcare issue,” says Robert Blancato, who heads the Elder Justice Coalition, an umbrella group for more than 500 groups that support the legislation. They include AARP, the American Bar Assn., and industry groups representing nursing homes and long-term providers, among others.

State and local governments have long been on the front lines of such problems. But many studies have shown a shortage of resources among licensing agencies, long-term-care ombudsmen and adult protective service workers.

“The universal lack of resources, the enormous variation across jurisdictions and the low priority given to elder abuse and neglect make it difficult to see how significant progress can be made without federal standards and financial support,” concluded researchers at Texas A&M University in a report prepared for the Justice Department last month. * * * [Links added.]

I am heartened by this article’s analysis as to the prospects for adoption of key provisions of past Elder Justice Act proposals into federal law with appropriate funding.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works daily in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

FindLaw

By Eric Sinrod

Whether a particular patent is valid has potentially far-reaching implications. Novelty or newness is the basic underpinning of every invention that leads to a patent.
After a patent has been granted, parties may seek to defeat its validity in litigation by arguing that the patented subject matter was not novel at the time of invention. There may be a showing that the invention at issue was anticipated by what is referred to as prior art.
Given the vast access to information now provided by the Internet, parties have a much greater ability to search for and potentially find prior art with respect to particular patented inventions. It is in this context that along comes Article One Partners, LLC (Article One). Article One has just launched a “new global community to legitimize the validity of patents.”

Article One seeks to have its member “Advisors” submit previously difficult to find prior art evidence relating to the validity of “high profile patents.” Article One in turn intends to analyze this information to determine whether it can show patents to be legitimate or invalid.
If Article One concludes that patents are invalid (the real focus), Advisors can earn up to $50,000, with a total of $1 million being offered potentially at launch. Furthermore, Advisors who actively build the Article One community can earn compensation in Article One’s profit sharing plan.

A patent is a powerful government-granted right that enables a patent-holder to prevent competition with respect to an invention for a certain period of years. Article One claims that its efforts are intended to “restore the patent system to its original intent of granting exclusive rights for true innovation.”

Accordingly, Article One apparently believes that prior art that establishes that a patent has been granted for an “invention” that in fact was not novel should be used to invalidate the patent.

Article One’s name comes from that portion of the United States Constitution that provides that “the Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times . . . inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries.”

Lest we not be mistaken, for some time already the Internet has been used by others to harvest information of prior art that may have anticipated particular patented inventions. But here, Article One seeks to provide financial incentives to potential global Advisors in one community to come forward with possible prior art information.

Article One states that its mission is to “evaluate and provide information to the patent industry.” One would think that that means that Article One could become a support player in patent litigation against patent holders. Time will tell whether Article One’s approach will gain traction.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod’s columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line.
This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.

By Paul Cherner

The EEOC has just published for public comment proposed new regulations interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (”ADAA“). The ADAA, which became effective January 1, 2009, required the EEOC to revise its ADA regulations and to redefine the term “substantially limits” in accord with the Congressional goal of defining the term “disability” in favor of broad coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA.

The proposed new rules reiterate that the definition of “disability’ should be broadly interpreted. The new rules liberally interpret the term “substantially limits” by providing that a limitation need not significantly or severely restrict a major life activity in order to meet the ADA standard for disability. The definition of “major life activities” has been expanded and now include factors on two non-exhaustive lists, including one that identifies major bodily functions.

These rules provide that actions based on an impairment should also include actions based on symptoms of an impairment. They also provide that qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria based on an individual’s uncorrected vision should not be used unless shown to be job-related for the position in issue and consistent with business necessity.

There is a 60 day period for public comment and then a period of time in which the EEOC will consider the comments before issuing final rules, which will probably not occur before early 2010. However, all employers should be reviewing their ADA policies and practices NOW to take into account the new realities of dealing with a broader and more liberal ADA. The EEOC has published questions and answers regarding their proposed new ADAA rules and employers are advised to review that document with legal counsel and their HR team.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Read the rest…

| By Paul Cherner

 
President Obama has nominated Jacqueline A. Berrien to be Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Berrien has been associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for the past five years. She previously worked for the Ford Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

 There appears to be a compromise gathering consensus concerning the enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act (”EFCA”). See our prior post for a description of the key provisions of this proposed legislation. The compromise that is emerging will be to drop the card check recognition provisions in favor of quick union elections (five to ten days) to be conducted by the NLRB. Left in the bill for now are the provisons providing for arbitration of first time union contracts and increased penalties for unfair labor practices committed during organizing drives and/or first contract negotiations. It is predicted that the Senate will probably not deal with this legislation until September at the earliest.

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

Within the past few days, major media — the Philadelphia Inquirer and ABC News — published accounts about Pennsylvania’s filial responsibility law, drawing attention to the desperation caused in some families in the Commonwealth who are compelled to support their parents’ costly care needs despite their disconnection or their best efforts.

The Inquirer, from Philadelphia, published its article, “If mom can’t pay, adult child must”, by Monica Yant Kinne, on Sunday, July 12, 2009; and ABC News, from New York City, published its article, “Pay Your Parents’ Bills or Else — Little-Known State Laws Force Some to Pay Their Parents’ Nursing Home Bills” by Alice Gomstyn, on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.

The Inquirer article told the story of Don Grant, of Havertown, Pennsylvania, who was sued for care costs incurred by his mother:
This one’s going to blow baby boomers’ minds. It concerns a little-known law dating to Elizabethan England suddenly being enforced with gusto in Pennsylvania. The law can force adult children to pay their parents’ health-care costs. If Mom and Pop can’t pay, you pay. If they have the money but refuse to pay, you pay.

If you don’t, watch your credit rating sink under the weight of a legal judgment that will haunt you for life.

It happened to Don Grant. It can happen to you.

The Havertown man is nearly 50 and struggling to pay his mortgage and $100,000 in student loans incurred by his daughter, a recent Albright College grad.

Last year, Grant was sued because his mother, Diana Fichera, did not pay an $8,000 bill at a Delaware County nursing home, where she rehabilitated after surgery.* * *
Don Grant’s mother was disassociated from him, and incurred substantial bills at care facilities. However, one care facility utilized Act 43 (recodified in Pennsylvania law in 2005), as a legal ground to sue him as her responsible family member.

The ABC News article told the story of Andrea August, of Norristown, Pennsylvania, who was also sued for care costs incurred for her mother:
Could you be sued for your parents’ unpaid health care bills? It happened to Andrea August.

One spring day, the 39-year-old Pennsylvania woman was stunned to learn that a nursing home was suing her for more than $300,000 in unpaid bills related to her father, who died after spending about a year in the home, and her mother, a dementia patient still living there.

“I was devastated,” August said. “We’re living basically paycheck to paycheck. We don’t try to live beyond our means — it was just unbelievable that all of a sudden there was this debt hanging over us.”

August said that both she and her husband work two jobs each to make ends meet for themselves and their two children. She loves her parents, she said, and did what she could to help them. But footing their bills was out of the question.

“I don’t think anybody should be responsible for someone else’s bill,” she said. “You can only do so much.”

August found herself among a growing number of adult children facing legal pressure to pay their parents’ medical bills. * * *
Both articles deliver excellent reviews about the “filial support” concept, which derived from English law in the 1600s, was transported into Colonial laws, but fell into disfavor and disuse with the introduction of the federal Medicare and Medicaid systems in the mid-sixties.

Both articles note how the precarious financial situations of care facilities and the funding problems of the federal systems now lead providers to invoke those prior laws, particularly in Pennsylvania, due to the 2005 reenactment, which followed issuance of a Superior Court decision in Presbyterian Medical Center v. Budd, 832 A.2d 1066 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Elder law attorneys have known about, and have opposed, the impact of Act 43 since its reenactment in 2005 into Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Code, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4603 regarding “Relatives’ liability” (unofficial form) and its supporting Regulations (”Actions for Support”).

I noted the problems that a spotty enforcement of such a law could create for families, and provided further references. See: PA EE&F Law Blog post “Filial Support” in PA? Really?!? (07/28/08). See also: “Should you worry about your parents’ debts?” by Liz Pulliam Weston, posted on MSN Money; and “Paying for Mom: Little-Known Laws Force Families to Fund Parents’ Care” (01/10/09) by Beth Baker posted by the AARP Bulletin.

My post quoted Professor Katherine C. Pearson, who is the Director of the Elder and Consumer Protection Clinic, of Penn State - Dickinson School of Law, and who now is Chair of the Elder Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

She was quoted in both the Inquirer and ABC News articles, too.

These articles appear just as federal health care insurance proposals air nationally. Such reform should take in account remaining state filial responsibility laws, and address, at minimum, the procedural rights that should be afforded to those being charged with care costs of family members.

However, until the situation of “filial responsibility” is clarified — particularly in Pennsylvania — anyone receiving an Act 43 demand from a care facility regarding costs incurred by a family member must be vigilant. Never brush off such a demand, or else you run the risk of becoming the star of another article about filial responsibility.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works daily in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.

 FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section about legal developments surrounding technology and the internet.

Lest you think the FTC is sitting back and letting rogue Internet Service Providers run wild in cyberspace, please consider the FTC’s recent shutdown of Pricewert LLC.

According to the FTC, Pricewert knowingly hosted and actively participated in the distribution of spam, child pornography, and other harmful electronic content.
Pricewert, as alleged by the FTC, was doing business under various names, including 3FN and APS Telecom, and actively recruited and colluded with criminals who sought to distribute child pornography, spyware, viruses, Trojan horses, phishing, botnet command and control servers, and pornography displaying violence, bestiality and incest.

The FTC asserted that Pricewert advertised its services “in the darkest corners of the Internet,” which included a forum for communications between criminals.

The FTC further alleged that Pricewert’s use of botnets (large computer networks that have been compromised and enslaved by a “bot herder” and that can be used for the sending of spam and the launching of denial of service attacks) included the control of more than 4,500 malicious software programs hosted by 3FN. This malware is asserted to have included programs capable of keystroke logging, password stealing, data stealing, programs with hidden backdoor remote control activity, and spam distribution programs.

The FTC filed a recent lawsuit in federal court in San Jose, California and charged that Pricewert’s distribution of illegal, malicious and harmful content and the deployment of botnets had compromised thousands of computers already and had caused substantial injuries to consumers.

The FTC promptly moved for a temporary restraining order, which was granted by the court. As a result, Pricewert’s alleged illegal activities are prohibited, at least for now, and its upstream Internet providers and data centers are required to cease providing services to Pricewert. Moreover, Pricewert’s assets have been frozen.

The case is not over, and Pricewert will have a chance to fully provide its factual version of events in support of its defense. But this case should serve as notice that the FTC can and will flex its muscles when it believes that serious wrongdoing is occurring in cyberspace.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (”FMLA”) was amended last year to provide for two new forms of leave for eligible employees who have a family member on active duty in the armed forces. These amendments afford eligible employees the opportunity to take “military caregiver leave” to care for covered service members. The other form of leave provided is “qualifying exigency leave” for any qualifying event that arises from a family member being called to active duty or receiving notice of an impending call to active duty status.

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued detailed regulations implementing these two new forms of leave for employers with 50 or more employees. Employers are required to update their FMLA policies, post revised FMLA notices and provide for these two new additional forms of leave for their eligible employees. For an indepth discussion of these new forms of leaves, see this author’s article “Leave for Military Family Members - What Employers Need to Know” in this week’s online version of Crain’s Workforce Management and the December 10, 2008 post in this blog..

Paul Cherner is a labor and employment attorney in Chicago, IL. Visit his blog at http://hrcounselblog.com.

On May 12, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, through its Office of Long-Term Living, announced creation of a new advisory council to focus on “quality management of in-home and community services” provided in the Commonwealth.

The DoA’s press release, entitled “Council Formed to Advise on Improving Services to Older Adults, People with Disabilities,” briefly explained the need and the objectives:
The Pennsylvania Department of Aging and the Office of Long-Term Living today announced the formation of a 15-member Quality Council that will advise on new policies and procedures to ensure quality management of in-home and community services.

“Many older citizens and those with disabilities prefer to live independently and at home — rather than in a nursing facility — so we want to make sure that the services we provide are the best that can be offered,” said Secretary of Aging John Michael Hall.

“The new council brings together experts from across Pennsylvania to help us improve on our programs.”

The Office of Long-Term Living will receive the council’s recommendations, based on its surveys, research and reports, to help provide the highest quality of assistance to the thousands of consumers who receive services in their homes. These services include attendant care, transportation, home-delivered meals for older adults, home health and personal assistance services. * * *
The new council is a mix of state employees (six members appointed from the staff of DPW’s Office of Long-Term Living) and Pennsylvania citizens (nine members).

The Press release did not identify the staff members, but did identify the public members, four of whom live in Philadelphia:
• Jack Armbruster, Erie
• Carl Bailey, Philadelphia
• Kimberly Byrd, Philadelphia
• Richard Kiel, Fayetteville
• Carol Marfisi, Philadelphia
• German Parodi, Philadelphia
• Kimberly Pirilla-Scalise, Belle Vernon
• Dorothy Robison, Lancaster
• Sue Ellen Stelevich, Kingston

Given the growing need both in rural communities and in western Pennsylvania, I wonder why there is no representative from a sparsely populated county, and no representative from Allegheny County, which have significant senior populations.

Regardless, the announcement of such a “Quality Council” monitor to provide input about independent living regulations on an advisory basis to State Government is a step forward.

As the Commonwealth’s population ages (creating demand), as federal funding diminishes (reducing nursing home services), and as new technologies evolve (supporting or monitoring services provided at home or in personal care homes), “quality control” should remain a primary concern.

Neil E. Hendershot is a practicing & teaching lawyer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania who works daily in the legal areas covered by the PA EE&F Law Blog.