Kozloff Stoudt

Kozloff Stoudt Attorney Discusses Legal Ramifications of PSU Scandal

admin — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:37:25 +0000

“The more the newly appointed investigation committee at Penn State digs up about why abuse allegations went unreported, the more legal ramifications Penn State could face.

The law firm Kozloff Stoudt in Wyomissing, Berks Co., represents seven school districts across our region.

When it comes to reporting child abuse of any kind in an educational setting, attorney Brian Boland said the law provides protection for whistleblowers.”

Click the following link to read the full article: Attorney discusses legal ramifications of PSU scandal

James M. Lillis: Lawyer; Municipal and School District Solicitor; and Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve

admin — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:30:45 +0000

Our Attorney, James M. Lillis, in “Faces in the News.” Click the Following Link to View the Full Article:

James M. Lillis: Lawyer; Municipal and School District Solicitor; and Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve

The Penn State University Dickinson School Of Law (DSL) Annual Negotiation Marathon Will Take Place On Saturday March 24, 2012 At The Carlisle, Pennsylvania Location Of The Law School.

admin — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:27:50 +0000

“The Penn State University Dickinson School of Law (DSL) annual Negotiation Marathon will take place on Saturday March 24, 2012 at the Carlisle, Pennsylvania location of the law school. This is an annual event for law students which event is designed by the school to introduce students to the subject of professional mediation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the context of an array of hypothetical legal disputes. Jeff Elliott, a DSL alum, has been invited to participate again this year as a student coach/mentor and competition judge. This will be Jeff’s third year of participating in this worthwhile and very practical exercise in ADR for teams of third year law students as they contemplate moving into the “real world” as lawyers after graduation and successfully passing the bar examination. Lawyers from around the state are invited to participate in this program at DSL as a result of a “judicial officer or colleague nominating them as one of the most effective and trustworthy legal negotiators he or she knows.” The Director of this Mediation program, and an instructor on the subject at Dickinson, Professor Nancy Welsh, described Jeff Elliott as “ one of the lawyers who I want to see interacting with our students and influencing their understanding of what it means to be a lawyer and a professional.”

Supervisors Must Have a Good Relationship With Their Solicitor to Keep Township Running Smoothly

admin — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:08:12 +0000

“A good working relationship between township officials and their solicitor is essential for keeping the township running efficiently and making sure it complies with state and federal laws. Like any successful partnership, it should be built on trust, communication, and understanding.”

BY BRENDA WILT / ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Please click the link below to view the entire article and read more:

Supervisors Must Have a Good Relationship With Their Solicitor to Keep Township Running Smoothly

PENNSYLVANIA COURT RULES THAT EMAILS ON TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS’ PERSONAL COMPUTERS MAY BE PROPERLY SUBJECT OF RIGHT TO KNOW (OPEN RECORDS) REQUESTS

admin — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:15:39 +0000

As a result of a decision which may be a surprise to many Solicitors and Open Records Officers, elected officials’ (board and council members) personal computers are no longer off limits to an Open Records Request. The prevailing thought had been, since those devices seemingly are not in possession or control of a Local Agency (school district, township, borough, authority, etc.) any records kept there would not be “of the township”, as had been the Montgomery County Court’s impression in Mollick v. Township of Worcester.

The Commonwealth Court disagreed with the lower court’s position, at least in a case in which two or more elected officials are involved in the exchange. The Court declared “regardless of whether the Supervisors herein utilize personal computers or personal email accounts, if two or more of the Supervisors (on a three person board) exchanged emails that document a transaction or activity of the township and were created, received or retained in connection with a transaction, business or activity of the township, the Supervisors may have been acting “as the Township”, and those email could be records “of the township”. As such, any emails that meet the definition of “record” under the Open Records Act, even if stored on the Supervisors’ personal computers or in their personal email accounts, may be records of the township.

Of further concern is the Court’s focus on the exchange of emails being a “deliberation of the township business within the meaning of the Sunshine Act.” By emphasizing such point, the Court allows for the possibility that aside from being an open records matter, the electronic exchange between two board members may be a violation of the Sunshine Act, which could result in individual criminal liability, including fines and sanctions in addition to those provided in the Open Records Act.

The Mollick case and others recently issued by our Commonwealth Court include other important rules and guidelines for local board and council members. As such, we will be available to answer questions and offer further explanation upon your request. For now, to paraphrase the “60 minutes rule”, we offer some general advice: If you don’t want to see it on 60 Minutes (or the local newspaper, television or blog), don’t do it, say it or send it!

KOZLOFF STOUDT, Attorneys

Municipal Law Section

Should I Choose Full Tort Or Limited Tort Automobile Insurance Coverage?

admin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:54:46 +0000

One of the major choices individuals face in Pennsylvania when purchasing automobile insurance is the question of whether they should choose the “full tort” or “limited tort” option. Frequently an insurance agent may provide only a brief description of the differences between the “full tort” and “limited tort” options that simply stating that a “full tort” insurance policy will have a more expensive insurance premium than a “limited tort” insurance policy. Unfortunately, while choosing the less expensive insurance policy premium may save you money in the short term, it may be a decision that you will sadly live to regret if you are later injured in an automobile accident.

When a person is injured in a motor vehicle accident, they frequently will suffer two different types of harm. First, the person may suffer what the law calls “economic damages”. “Economic” damages are those types of damages that many people commonly consider to be “out of pocket” expenses such as medical bills, lost wages or salary from missing work, property repair costs, etc. suffered as a result of the accident. Second the person may suffer what the law calls “non-economic” damages. “Non-economic” damages are those harms suffered by an injured person whose monetary value cannot be easily and objectively determined by a court. “Non-economic” damages include items such as pain and suffering, loss of life’s pleasures, etc. as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

A person injured in a motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania frequently can file a lawsuit to recover “economic” damages from the party that
caused the accident. However, Pennsylvania law imposes strict rules on when and how an injured person may file a lawsuit to recover non-economic damages for their pain, suffering, or other ongoing difficulties in life that result from an motor vehicle accident depending upon whether the injured person is covered by a “full tort” or “limited tort” insurance option.

With certain exceptions, under Pennsylvania law, a person who selects the “limited tort” option generally may recover non-economic damages only if he can establish that he has suffered a “serious injury” as that term is defined by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. Under Pennsylvania law, only the following types of injuries are considered to be serious enough to permit a “limited tort” selector to recover non-economic damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident:

Death;
Permanent serious disfigurement; or
A serious impairment of body function.

When determining whether or not a person has suffered a “serious impairment of body function” that would permit the recovery of non- economic damages, a court will consider the following factors:

The particular body function impaired;
The extent of the impairment;
The length of time the impairment lasted, and;
The treatment required to correct the impairment.

Although many people may believe that if they suffer injuries such as ongoing pain, difficulty moving, an inability to do all of the same things they previously did, etc. after an motor vehicle accident they must necessarily have suffered a “serious injury” that will permit them to recover non-economic damages this belief is incorrect. Although each case is judged on its individual merits, it has not been uncommon for courts to find that individuals who claimed to suffer from ongoing and long term aches and pains or other difficulties as a result of a motor vehicle accident did not suffer a “serious injury” that would permit them to recover non-economic damages to compensate them for their pain and suffering. As a result, it is entirely possible for a person to suffer from long term and possibly permanent aches, pains or other difficulties due to an motor vehicle accident and never be compensated for their pain and suffering if they chose the “limited tort” option on their automobile insurance policy in an effort to save money on the cost of the insurance policy premium. Sadly the long term cost that an individual will suffer from the pain and suffering caused by a motor vehicle frequently will far outweigh any “savings” in reduced insurance policy premiums that were obtained by selecting the “limited tort” option.

In contrast, the “full tort” automobile insurance option is easily described and understood. If the injured person is covered by a “full tort” motor vehicle insurance policy, that person has a full and unrestricted right to file a lawsuit to recover all non-economic damages suffered due to a motor vehicle accident. Put simply, an individual with “full tort” coverage does not need to worry about whether or not he has suffered from a serious enough injury before seeking to be compensated for any pain or suffering caused by an motor vehicle accident. Thus, while a “full tort” selection may cost you more money in the short term due to increased premiums, it’s a choice that provides you with the maximum amount of protection if you are ever unlucky enough to be injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Ultimately the decision of whether you should choose “full tort” or “limited tort” motor vehicle insurance coverage must be made based upon your own individual circumstances. However, you should always keep in mind that while the selection of a “limited tort” insurance policy may save you money in insurance premium costs, that choice may cause you substantial regret if you later suffer injuries a court does not believe are “serious” in a motor vehicle accident.

Attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:26:34 +0000

MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM CA

MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM

THE TOP TRIAL LAWYERS IN AMERICA

DONALD F. COSTELLO, PRESIDENT TELEPHONE (856) 792-6100

LAW OFFICES OF DONALD F. COSTELLO FAX (858) 702-6 101

P.O. BOX 2884

DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 02014

PRESS RELEASE

Date: November 14, 2011 Del Mar, California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr
Named To Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum

Contact

Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr Kozioff Stoudt Attorneys

2640 Westview Drive

Wyomissing PA 19610

Telephone: 610.670.2552

Firm website: www.kozloffstoudt.com

The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is pleased to announce that attorney Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr of Wyomissing PA has been certified as a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Mr. Schuchman is presently a Life Member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum, one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership in the Million Dollar Advocates Forum is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements. The organization was founded in 1993 and there are approximately 4000 members located throughout the country. Fewer than 1% of U.S. lawyers are members. Forum membership acknowledges excellence in advocacy, and provides members with a national network of experienced colleagues for professional referral and information exchange in major cases. Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case in which their client has received a verdict, award or settlement in the amount of one million dollars or more.

Members of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum must be Life Members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and must have acted as principal counsel in at least one case which has resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict, award or settlement. Mr. Schuchman is a member of both the Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum.

Peter Francis Schuchman, Jr is a graduate of The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. He is a trial advocate for clients who suffer serious personal injuries and property damage, who have insurance concerns or are embroiled in business or construction disputes.

For further information regarding membership and qualifications, see www.MillonDollarAdvocates.co,n. The Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum was established in 2007. There are members of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum (established 1993) who may have had multi-million dollar cases but who have not applied for membership in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum although they may be qualified. Membership in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum is not Intended to imply that a member of the Million Dollar Advocates Forum may not have had multi-million dollar cases.

MILLION DOLLAR ADVOCATES FORUM, LLC
P.O. BOX 2684 DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92014 TEL 858.792.6 100
WWW.MILLIONDOLLARADVOCATES.COM

PREPARING A MARRIED COUPLE TO PAY FOR NURSING HOME COSTS

admin — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:42:18 +0000

The thought of putting your spouse into a nursing home is an unpleasant thought which is only magnified by the reality of how much it costs. Local nursing home costs generally range from $8,000 to $10,000, depending on the level of care and medications you need. Those kinds of numbers are petrifying to most couples, even with the knowledge that Medicaid will eventually pay for those nursing home costs. Many people believe that they need to deplete all or most of their savings in order to qualify for benefits which obviously would be a negative result for the healthy “community spouse” who needs to be able to support the remainder of their life. Unfortunately, the “system” does not do the best job in educating and advising the married couple what will or can happen when one of them is about to enter a nursing home. If you are armed with the proper knowledge and engage in some relatively easy planning, the process can not only be much less frightening but also not nearly as financially devastating as it needs to be.
Medicaid is a federal program administered by the states that provides medical benefits to those with limited assets. If the nursing home patient spouse’s income and resources fall below established minimums the patient spouse will qualify for Medicaid and all nursing home expenses will be paid by the government. The rules for married couples include certain “spousal impoverishment” provisions which in theory are designed to keep the community spouse at the same standard of living that he or she enjoyed prior to admitting their loved one into a nursing home.
Generally, the process proceeds as follows: When the patient spouse is admitted to the nursing home the couple will be given a packet of Medicaid information which includes a one page Resource Assessment form. This form needs to be filled out showing the value of all assets owned by the couple either individually or jointly with values as of the date of admittance. The Department of Public Welfare then uses these amounts to determine what assets are protected for the community spouse and what assets need to be spent down in order for the patient to qualify for Medicaid. First, any excluded assets are removed from the calculation and will forever remain assets of the community spouse (as long as the assets, such as the personal residence, are re-titled to the community spouse’s name only). Excluded assets include the personal residence of the couple with a value up to $500,000, one automobile, the tangible personal property owned by both spouses, any qualified accounts (401k or IRA) owned by the community spouse, a patient spouse whole life insurance policy up to $1,500 cash value, term life insurance on either spouse, and pre-paid funeral accounts for both spouses. Once all of these assets are subtracted from the Resource Assessment, the remaining individual and joint owned assets are added up and divided by two. Half of those assets are considered the protected share of the community spouse up to a maximum amount of approximately $110,000. The other half is earmarked for the patient spouse and based upon the patient spouse’s income either $8,000 or $2,400, is exempted and the remaining balance must be “spent down” in order for the patient spouse to receive Medicaid benefits.
As you can imagine, some couples are not financial ruined by this process especially if the community spouse has sizeable qualified accounts. But even better news is that with proper timing the “spend down” assets can be quickly spent on items which will benefit both the patient spouse as well as the community spouse in order to make the community spouse’s life more comfortable. For example, these monies can be spent on pre-paid funerals for both husband and wife, a new car for the community spouse which has a warranty, major repairs and improvements to the personal residence to not only help the community spouse save money in the future but to add value to the home for when it may be sold or inherited, paying off debts of either spouse such as a mortgage, car loan or credit cards, taking a vacation, and just about anything which benefits either spouse and is not a gift to a third party. In some cases, if timed properly the patient’s “spend down” assets are spent almost entirely on the community spouse while paying very little to the nursing home as a private pay patient.
It is important to at least consult an attorney as early as possible in the process so that your individual assets can be analyzed and a simple plan can be developed in order to best protect the community spouse. In some situations having representation throughout the entire approval process is essential, such as when the couple owns a vacation home which they want to remain in the family or if the community spouse’s income is extremely low and you are worried that you won’t be able to make ends meet once the patient spouse passes away and Social Security and pension income stops.
Nursing home administrators or even DPW do not always or cannot inform you of all of your rights and options in these situations, therefore many couples make incorrect and irreversible financial moves which ultimately reduce the amount of money the community spouse was entitled to keep. In conclusion, if you believe that you or your spouse may face a nursing home in the future or you are already in that situation consult an attorney who is experienced in Medicaid representation. He can help you do everything possible to protect the maximum amount of assets for the community spouse.

Please consult the Office of Kozloff Stoudt to discuss this matter or any other matter regarding your Estate Planning needs. You can visit us at www.kozloffstoudt.com.

Jeffrey Elliott to speak at St. Ignatius RC Church

admin — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:43:10 +0000

Jeffrey Elliott has been invited by the pastor of St. Ignatius RC Church in West Lawn, Monsignor James Treston, to address the audience during this year’s annual Veterans Day celebration and ecumenical service at the parish on the evening of November 9, 2011 at 7:30pm. The service at the church is intended to recognize all those from the Berks County area who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States or who are presently serving, in both active and reserve components. Jeff has been invited to be the Principal Speaker for the event as a senior army officer and member of the parish. Jeff is a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, an Army Colonel, and a lawyer with the Judge Advocate General Corps. He is the State Judge Advocate, the senior judge advocate or lawyer in the state. In that capacity he provides legal advice directly to the Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and his Directorates, and is responsible for supervising all legal services provided to soldiers and commanders of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard

Municipal Law Update: Proposed Government Bid Limits Package

admin — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:42:48 +0000

Earlier this year Representative Mark K. Keller (R – Perry and part of Franklin Counties) sponsored the Government Bid Limits Package to overhaul the manner in which governmental entities (including municipalities, counties, school districts and the Commonwealth) bid contracts. Since 1990, State and local governments have had to seek at least three (3) telephonic quotes for purchases greater than $4,000 and accept bids for purchases starting at $10,000. While the intent of this process is to encourage competition among governmental contractors and to guard against patronage, this process can be very time consuming and expensive. Further, the dollar thresholds that were set in 1990 have not accounted for the impact of inflation on governmental purchasing over the last twenty-one (21) years.

Generally, the Government Bid Limits Package seeks to increase the bidding requirement threshold from $10,000 to $25,000. Similarly, the threshold for quote gathering would be increased to $10,000; meaning that governmental purchases of $9,999.99 or less would be exempt from the bidding process. Additionally, the proposed Bid Limits Package would task the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry with periodically adjusting the bidding thresholds to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.

While the bidding exemption of contracts for less than $10,000 may be distressing to some who fear this may lead to an increase in governmental waste and favoritism, the prohibition against large“piecemeal projects”, the Sunshine Act and other legislative protections should minimize these concerns.

As of the publication of this article, the Bid Limits Packaage was passed by the House and has been referred to the State Senate’s Local Government Committee for consideration.