3/25/2024 Local Politician vows to fight proposed apartments 'tooth and nail' if they house homeless vetsRead Now"What is The Woodley?
The Woodley is a proposed mixed-use development located on the block bordered by Main, Sumter and Scott streets, near Elmwood Avenue. Plans approved by the city Thursday include two four-story buildings housing residential units, a residents center and a commercial leasing area." And I am proud to represent these folks. Some others appear to be not so happy to see North Main street be improved though .... "COLUMBIA – State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, D-Columbia, has taken aim at an apartment complex proposed for the North Main neighborhood of Columbia. The lawmaker and lawyer joined Cottontown residents who fear the development will bring homeless veterans into the neighborhood at a recent city meeting. But developers for the proposed apartments, slated for a tract of land between North Main and Sumter streets, told city officials they had no concrete plans to house veterans experiencing homelessness, or use housing vouchers." Link to the Post and Courier Story Here: https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/woodley-north-main-proposal-columbia-sc/article_0ee191ec-e877-11ee-9a94-0b0b961d7b89.html
0 Comments
1/12/2024 A Note about "Stacking." or... How to Maximize Car Wreck Compensation in South Carolina By Stacking Insurance PoliciesRead Now Most people know that South Carolina requires drivers to carry a minimum of only $25,000.00 in auto liability insurance. So... what happens when your medical bills and expenses from a car accident are more than the coverage available? What if the driver who injured you had no insurance at all?
Unfortunately, these situations are increasingly common. High premiums and other factors are driving an increase in drivers choosing to drive without any insurance. Although SC requires driver to have liability insurance coverage, more than 9 percent of South Carolina drivers are uninsured. This number increases every year and does not include drivers who do not carry sufficient insurance coverage to pay for the injuries they cause. Fortunately, SC is one of the few states that allow “stacking” of insurance policies. This is a way for injured accident victims to receive the maximum compensation they deserve. Uninsured And Underinsured Insurance Policies SC law requires that you purchase uninsured motorist coverage (UM). UM coverage provides you coverage if you are hit by an uninsured at fault driver. In addition, insurance carriers in South Carolina must offer you the option to purchase under insured motorist coverage (UIM). Your own UIM policy would cover you if the at fault driver’s liability policy was not sufficient to cover your losses from a motor vehicle wreck. How SC Auto Insurance Policies Can Be "Stacked" Under South Carolina law, both UM and UIM insurance "follow" the driver, not the vehicle. You may be covered by multiple UM or UIM policies that you or your family purchased, and these policies may “follow” you even if some of them were purchased for vehicles not involved in the accident. If you have UIM insurance for two different cars and you were injured in one of them, you can claim from the UIM policies of both cars, not just the one in the accident. This is in addition to the amount you receive from the at-fault driver’s policy. However, there are limits to "stacking" insurance policies. First, the amount you can claim from each policy cannot exceed the maximum amount of the insurance for the vehicle involved in the accident. Also, you cannot stack both UM and UIM policies at the same time. The at-fault driver in your accident can either be uninsured or underinsured, not both. Auto insurance stacking rules can be confusing, but once you understand your best options you can get paid the maximum amount of compensation. Don’t hesitate to discuss this with an experienced injury attorney. If you are injured in a auto accident in South Carolina talk to us about your insurance situation. Call Goff Law Group today at (803) 252-0005. "Should I have a Will or a Trust?" "What is the difference?" "Do I need a Will?" "What is a "living trust"? "Someone told me I should get a living trust...."
I've noticed that there are some questions that I encounter frequently in my estate planning practice. It has been a while since I have posted anything in the blog/news section here so I thought I would make a post that answers some of these questions. Estate planning is a crucial process that allows individuals to protect their assets and ensure the orderly distribution of their wealth after their death. Wills and trusts are two common estate planning vehicles that each serve distinct purposes. Wills: A Will, also known as a Last Will and Testament, is a legal document that outlines an individual's wishes regarding asset distribution after their death. Probate Process: A Will typically goes through the probate process, where a court validates the document and oversees the administration of the estate. Executor: The Will designates an executor who manages the estate, pays debts, and ensures assets are distributed according to the testator's wishes. In South Carolina, we call this person a "Personal Representative" instead of an "executor" but the duties and responsibilities are the same. Testamentary Guardianship: Wills allow individuals to appoint guardians for minor children, ensuring their care and protection. Some potential advantages of a Will over a Trust are: Simplicity: Wills are relatively simple to create and amend, making them suitable for individuals with straightforward estate planning needs. Flexibility: Wills provide individuals with the freedom to distribute their assets as they desire, within legal limits. Some things to Consider: Probate: Wills are subject to the probate process, which can be time-consuming, costly, and may lack privacy. Limited Incapacity Planning: Wills do not address incapacity during an individual's lifetime, potentially requiring court intervention. Trusts: A trust is a legal entity created to hold and manage assets for the benefit of designated beneficiaries. Avoidance of Probate: Assets held in a trust typically bypass the probate process, providing a more efficient and private distribution of assets. Trustee: A trustee, appointed by the trust creator, manages and distributes the assets according to the trust's terms. Some potential advantages of a trust over a Will are: Probate Avoidance: Trusts offer the benefit of bypassing probate, reducing administrative delays and costs. Incapacity Planning: Living trusts allow individuals to plan for incapacity by appointing a successor trustee to manage their affairs seamlessly. Privacy: Trusts offer a higher level of privacy, as they are generally not subject to public scrutiny. Some things to consider when evaluating a trust as an estate planning vehicle include: Relative Complexity: Trusts can be more complex to establish and maintain compared to wills, requiring proper funding and ongoing administration. Cost: Establishing and maintaining a trust may involve higher upfront costs and legal fees. When considering Wills versus trusts as estate planning vehicles, you must carefully evaluate your own unique circumstances, goals, and preferences. Wills offer simplicity, flexibility, and are suitable for individuals with straightforward needs. Trusts provide probate avoidance, incapacity planning, and enhanced privacy but may require greater complexity and cost. Consulting with an experienced estate planning attorney is crucial to determine the most appropriate option based on your individual needs and goals. Ultimately, the chosen estate planning vehicle should align with your goals of preserving assets, protecting loved ones, and ensuring a seamless distribution of wealth in accordance with your wishes. Military Times reports that the proposed House Democratic spending bill, which is expected to advance this week could overturn the Feres Doctrine, a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision that has prohibited U.S. Military service members from bringing claims for medical malpractice. In Feres, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that military members could not bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act if they were injured as the result of another federal employee, including physicians. The proposed bill would allow claims against the Department of Defense in some cases of medical negligence. Full article here: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/07/10/widows-tax-block-on-military-malpractice-lawsuits-would-be-repealed-in-house-defense-bill/
As combat veterans, we believe that veterans and service members should make themselves heard on this issue and we hope the measure passes! We discussed the Feres doctrine in depth in an earlier post back in March. Check out that post for more. 3/26/2019 Feres Doctrine Under Review: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide whether Servicemembers are able to Sue for Medical Malpractice.Read Now"Every person in the United States of America, even illegals, even inmates, can sue for malpractice insurance. The only people in the U.S. who can't sue for malpractice insurance are our soldiers. This is discrimination against a certain class of people -- the military," - Natalie Khawam, an attorney who is representing SFC Richard Stayskal, a 37 year-old Green Beret and father of two daughters, who is dying from stage IV lung cancer misdiagnosed by Army doctors and allowed to go untreated.
Feres v. United States, a 1950 Supreme Court decision established a precedent known as the “Feres Doctrine” which prevents active duty military personnel from suing the government for injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act sustained as a result of military service. Feres does not apply to civilian dependents of military members or Department of Defense Civilians. Feres effectively bars members of the military for collecting damages from the United States for injuries experienced in the performance of their duties. But, the case has farther reaching results that are hard to justify. "Suppose you had two sisters. One was on active duty and the other was a military dependent. Both of them give birth in adjoining rooms at the same military hospital [by the same doctor]. Both are victims of malpractice. One can sue and the other one can't. How can that make sense?" Asks Professor Eugene Fidell. Feres combined three cases then pending before United States Federal courts, Feres, Jefferson and Griggs. Feres involved the death of a soldier in a barracks fire due to alleged negligence. Interestingly, Jefferson and Griggs both involved claims of medical malpractice against Army surgeons. The Plaintiff’s claims in Jefferson v. United States, 178 F.2d 518 (1949) are pretty shocking. While in the Army, Jefferson received an abdominal surgery at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Eight months later, in the course of another operation after he was discharged, surgeons discovered a 30-inch-long, 18-inch-wide towel, marked "Medical Department U.S. Army," in Jefferson's stomach. Jefferson of course alleged that it was negligently left there by the army surgeon. He sought $7,500.00 in damages. The husband of a woman who bled to death during childbirth is challenging Feres. He has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 69 year old ruling. In his case, Walter Daniel argues that the military health system has changed substantially since the initial Feres ruling, and the development and expansion of the non-combat military health care mission - including treating dependents and hiring thousands of civilian health care providers -- makes the ruling "unjustifiable." "The only difference in the two groups is that a member of one group has a uniform hanging in the hospital room while the other does not," – Walter Daniel. These are not the first challenges to the Feres Doctrine. There have been several cases before the Supreme Court over the years and at least two bills before the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to address the obvious injustice of denying military members the ability to seek compensation for medical negligence. Veterans and service members should make themselves heard on this issue. Here’s wishing Walter Daniels good luck! A recent study comparing all fifty U.S. States and the District of Columbia on a number of factors, including elder abuse, gross neglect of seniors, and exploitation complaints, found that South Carolina is dead last when it comes to preventing abuse of our senior citizens. The Study can be found here: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-best-elder-abuse-protection/28754/
This is an extremely sad state of affairs. I have been proud to have done my own small part in drawing attention to this issue over the years. If you suspect that your loved one may have been the victim of abuse at a nursing home or rehabilitation center I would like to speak with you about your options to help draw attention to this issue and get some measure of justice your family member - they deserve better! 8/6/2018 Study Finds surgeons who behave badly are more likely to face medical malpractice claims.Read NowAs if we needed a reminder that "bedside manner" is important and good manners are just another casualty of modernity, a Harvard study found surgeons who behave badly — by yelling, snapping, intimidating or talking down to colleagues — are associated with a higher rate of medical malpractice claims.
https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/publishahead/Multisource_Evaluation_of_Surgeon_Behavior_is.95666.aspx 6/27/2018 Pressure Ulcers are Preventable,Painful, and Increasingly Common - Especially at the VA.Read NowPressure sore cases, also called "bed sores" or "decubitus ulcers" are among the most terrible and infuriating medical malpractice cases I have had. Imagine someone you love slowly and painfully rotting to death from wounds that were fully preventable. These injuries are almost completely preventable with proper care, monitoring and nutrition. Unfortunately, many of our veterans must rely on the VA for their care and are needlessly injured or killed due to neglect or malpractice. A recent report found that patients at VA facilities were significantly more likely to suffer from pressure sore injuries.
By Andrea Estes and Donovan Slack Globe Staff | USA Today June 25, 2018 An analysis of documents shows that residents at more than two-thirds of Department of Veterans Affairs nursing homes last year were more likely to have dangerous bed sores and to suffer serious pain than their counterparts in private nursing homes across the country. The analysis suggests that large numbers of veterans suffered potential neglect or medication mismanagement and provides a fuller picture of the state of care in the 133 VA nursing homes that serve 46,000 sick and infirm military veterans each year. More than 100 VA nursing homes scored worse than private nursing homes on a majority of key quality indicators, which include rates of infection and decline in daily living skills, according to the analysis of the data withheld from public view by the VA but obtained by USA TODAY and The Boston Globe. The news organizations reported last week that 60 VA nursing homes received the agency’s lowest quality ranking of one out of five stars last year, but the data didn’t detail how individual facilities scored on specific measures. USA TODAY and The Boston Globe are now publishing the full data, outlined in internal documents, for every VA nursing facility as of Dec. 31, 2017. Four VA facilities — nursing homes in Bedford, Mass.; Chillicothe, Ohio; Tuscaloosa, Ala.; and Roseburg, Ore. — lagged private nursing home averages on 10 of 11 indicators. At all four, about a third of residents were given anti-psychotic drugs — almost twice as many as in the private sector. The FDA has said such drugs are associated with an increased risk of death in elderly patients with dementia. “They should be assessing individuals and doing what they can to manage it,” said Robyn Grant, director of public policy and advocacy at the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. “And if it’s not working, they should be trying different things.” The VA, which has argued that its residents are typically sicker than those in private facilities, has tracked the detailed quality data for more than two years but has kept it secret, depriving veterans of potentially crucial health care information. VA press secretary Curt Cashour declined to answer questions last week about whether or when the agency planned to release the quality information, as well as nursing home staff data the VA has compiled dating back to 2004. He also declined to say when the VA would release inspection reports the agency has kept secret for more than a decade. Following the investigative report by USA TODAY and the Globe, Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones introduced legislation that would force the VA to release all of its nursing home quality information at least once a year. “We cannot work with this administration or any administration to fix the VA if we don’t have the information,’’ Jones said. Acting VA Secretary Peter O’Rourke told the CBS News affiliate in Dallas last week that VA officials were “evaluating exactly what is the most appropriate for us to put out there and that will support continuous improvement and then also will provide good decision making information for veterans.” He called the USA TODAY and Boston Globe reporting on the VA nursing home ratings “fake news.” Federal regulations require private nursing homes to disclose voluminous data on the care they provide. The federal government uses the data to calculate quality measures and posts them on a federal website, along with inspection results and staffing information. But the rules don’t apply to the VA. The VA has used similar data internally to track quality at its nursing homes as far back as 2011, according to a report in October that year from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. At that point, the agency monitored at least two dozen factors, including how many residents had bed sores or were in serious pain. But none of the information was released. The 2011 review found that 80 percent of the agency’s nursing homes had problems with medication management, but VA headquarters wasn’t using the data “to detect patterns and trends in the quality of care and quality of life within a [VA nursing home] or across many [of them].” Full Story Here: 3/7/2018 Vindicated! South Carolina Supreme Court Rules Against Richland County - Citing Misuse of Funds.Read NowThere are few feelings as professionally rewarding as being part of a cause you believe in and having the Supreme Court agree with your position. I am very proud to have been a part of the S.C. Dept. of Revenue's outside legal team on this case.
From The State Newspaper March 7, 2018: By Jeff Wilkinson And Sarah Ellis jwilkinson@thestate.com sellis@thestate.com The state Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned “dubious” spending in Richland County’s transportation penny sales tax program and ordered a halt to further spending until the county ensures the money is being spent legally. The justices directed a circuit court judge to require the county to establish safeguards assuring the money is spent only on transportation-related capital projects and some administrative costs, as required by state law. The circuit court also can order the county to repay any previous improper expenditures. A county spokeswoman said the ruling is being reviewed by attorneys. But County Council member Greg Pearce said county officials were taken by surprise by the ruling. “We thought we were going to win,” he said. “We thought we were on extremely solid ground. There’s been no contingency on what would happen if we lose.” Read more here. |
Details
AuthorDylan W. Goff Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|