County: Grant
Age: 64
This client contacted us because his administrative hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles has been postponed. Our client was pulled over for drinking and driving. His attorney was able to get a favorable outcome in the criminal case since our client was not under the influence of alcohol; however, his administrative case to determine wether his driving privileges should be suspended has not happened yet because the arresting officer is currently serving in Iraq. Our client wanted to know his due process and administrative due process rights. I researched the issue for him and explained that although the WV Supreme Court has stated a driver's license is a property interest within the protection of the WV Due Process Clause, the commissioner under the Code of State Rules may postpone a hearing upon his own motion for good cause. Since the arresting officer, who is crucial to the hearing, will not be available, then the commission has the authority to postpone. Also, since our client still has his driving privileges, he is not being harmed by the delay. Our client is low income and the research we provided is quite valuable to him as it would have cost quite a bit to have a private attorney do the same research.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Coal Company Retirees, M'care Part D, UMWA update
This is a followup to my post last week in this blog about coal retirees getting threatened with losing their company healthcare benefits if they didn't enroll in a Medicare Part D plan by December 31, 2005.
According to Brian Sampson in the President's office at the United Mine Workers Union (UMWA), all the coal companies the UMWA deals with nationwide took the 28% government incentive to keep all their current retiree drug benefits in place except these four: Peabody, Consol, Arch, and Bluestone. These four companies instead demanded each of their retirees (and their dependants) enroll in a Part D plan or lose all retiree health coverage by December 31, 2005.
UMWA quickly went into negotiations with these four companies to advocate the position that the collective bargaining agreements in place guaranteed these retirees their existing benefits, and they could not be forced to enroll in a Part D plan to keep what they already had a right to. UMWA, however, did send letters to their member retirees recommending that they go ahead and enroll while the union continued to dispute the actions of the companies.
According to a press release from UMWA issued December 29, 2005, the companies have all agreed not to take away the health benefits of those who have not enrolled in drug plans while the dispute is resolved. According to Brian, all four companies have also agreed that they will provide wraparound coverage at the levels they provided before. This means that retirees would not have to pay any more out of pocket than they did before. Hopefully they would each have two prescription cards, one from the Part D provider they chose, and one from the company's provider which would cover deductibles and copays beyond the out-of-pocket limits they had before. If the companies require burdensome paperwork or other hoops for retirees to jump through to get the wraparound coverage, this will be an important issue for advocacy.
Also according to Brian all sides have agreed to expedite the issue, and if they cannot come to an agreement it will go through the Resolution of Dispute (ROD) process of collective bargaining, to be decided by a board of trustees. If the UMWA is not satisfied with that decision, they may take it to the next level which is arbitration. Brian expects that the resolution will be final before May 15, 2006, since all sides know that the federal legislation creating Part D imposes penalties on current beneficiaries who enroll after that date.
So at this point we at WVSLA agree that it is probably best for these retirees who have not yet enrolled to go ahead and do so. Humana is the company with the lowest premiums in West Virginia, and though UMWA does not endorse the company, they suggest their members who haven't chosen yet to consider enrolling in Humana to at least get enrolled in something. If the companies do provide wraparound coverage it won't much matter what the Part D plan covers since the companies will make up the difference, so low premiums will suit most retirees best.
Because of the agreements reached so far, retirees should not be experiencing coverage lapses. Consol retirees who are having problems with coverage at the pharmacy can contact Consol's retiree call center at 1-877-240-0139. Retirees from Peabody, Arch, and Bluestone who are experiencing coverage problems can contact the union at (304) 346-0342.
According to Brian Sampson in the President's office at the United Mine Workers Union (UMWA), all the coal companies the UMWA deals with nationwide took the 28% government incentive to keep all their current retiree drug benefits in place except these four: Peabody, Consol, Arch, and Bluestone. These four companies instead demanded each of their retirees (and their dependants) enroll in a Part D plan or lose all retiree health coverage by December 31, 2005.
UMWA quickly went into negotiations with these four companies to advocate the position that the collective bargaining agreements in place guaranteed these retirees their existing benefits, and they could not be forced to enroll in a Part D plan to keep what they already had a right to. UMWA, however, did send letters to their member retirees recommending that they go ahead and enroll while the union continued to dispute the actions of the companies.
According to a press release from UMWA issued December 29, 2005, the companies have all agreed not to take away the health benefits of those who have not enrolled in drug plans while the dispute is resolved. According to Brian, all four companies have also agreed that they will provide wraparound coverage at the levels they provided before. This means that retirees would not have to pay any more out of pocket than they did before. Hopefully they would each have two prescription cards, one from the Part D provider they chose, and one from the company's provider which would cover deductibles and copays beyond the out-of-pocket limits they had before. If the companies require burdensome paperwork or other hoops for retirees to jump through to get the wraparound coverage, this will be an important issue for advocacy.
Also according to Brian all sides have agreed to expedite the issue, and if they cannot come to an agreement it will go through the Resolution of Dispute (ROD) process of collective bargaining, to be decided by a board of trustees. If the UMWA is not satisfied with that decision, they may take it to the next level which is arbitration. Brian expects that the resolution will be final before May 15, 2006, since all sides know that the federal legislation creating Part D imposes penalties on current beneficiaries who enroll after that date.
So at this point we at WVSLA agree that it is probably best for these retirees who have not yet enrolled to go ahead and do so. Humana is the company with the lowest premiums in West Virginia, and though UMWA does not endorse the company, they suggest their members who haven't chosen yet to consider enrolling in Humana to at least get enrolled in something. If the companies do provide wraparound coverage it won't much matter what the Part D plan covers since the companies will make up the difference, so low premiums will suit most retirees best.
Because of the agreements reached so far, retirees should not be experiencing coverage lapses. Consol retirees who are having problems with coverage at the pharmacy can contact Consol's retiree call center at 1-877-240-0139. Retirees from Peabody, Arch, and Bluestone who are experiencing coverage problems can contact the union at (304) 346-0342.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Coal Company Retirees and Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Enrollment
Just before the end of 2005 a panic developed among many Medicare-eligible coal company retirees. They got letters saying that they (and their spouses and dependents) would lose all their retiree healthcare benefits if they did not enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan by December 31, 2005. These retirees have typically had excellent healthcare coverage, including some of the best prescription drug coverage of any retirement plans available in West Virginia. Some have paid no more than $50 out of pocket per year for drugs, even if they got thousands of dollars worth of prescriptions each year.
What about those retirees who are very sick and whose lives depend on costly medical care? What about those retirees who couldn't read or understand their letter (perhaps because of illiteracy, macular degeneration, mental incapacity, low education, etc.)? What about those retirees who never got the letter? What about the covered spouses and children of these retirees who never saw any such letter?
Even for those retirees and dependants who understood, there are literally 57 different drug plans available, each with different premiums, copayments, deductibles, and formularies. How could they possibly digest all that and make a good choice? The only real way to compare 57 different plans is through Medicare.gov's interactive Plan Finder database. How many of these retirees are computer-savvy enough to go through that process? Even if you can type and navigate the website, try typing "hydrochlorothiazide" or "metronidazole" without errors. And all this under the deadline of the busiest time of the year for many, the holiday season, with plenty of snow and cold to contend with.
Then those retirees who were also members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) got letters saying that, though the union disagreed with the coal companies that they could take away retiree health coverage for failure to enroll in a drug plan, the union was recommending that affected retirees go ahead and comply by enrolling while they advocated their position.
For those who got the letters, understood them, and needed help choosing and enrolling in a plan, there was very limited help available. The process of choosing a plan can be time consuming, even using the interactive web-based Plan Finder. This is especially true for folks who take numerous prescription drugs. The toll-free numbers for Medicare, many of the drug companies, and other helping agencies were virtually impossible to get through on during those last weeks of December. One Morgantown senior said she finally hung up after being on hold with Humana (one of the popular and cheaper plan providers) with 1 hour and 40 minutes, hoping to enroll to keep from losing her benefits. Another had a surgery scheduled for January 5, 2006. Even if she could get her healthcare reinstated after successfully enrolling, if it couldn't be done in a week, she would have to bear the huge costs of a surgery because of the lapse in coverage.
At the last possible minute, in the Gazette-Mail on Saturday, December 31, 2005, Cecil Roberts of the UMWA is quoted as saying that retirees from Peabody, Consol, Arch, and Bluestone will not lose their coverage if they have not enrolled in a drug plan by December 31, 2005.
And yet this morning we have reports of covered retirees going to pick up their monthly prescriptions at the same pharmacies they've gone to for years and being told suddenly that they have been "red-flagged," and no longer have any drug coverage at all. Even some who have successfully enrolled in plans, but have not yet gotten their cards and coverage info.
Some of these prescriptions are a matter of life and death. Imagine the impact that all this confusion and threats of having no more coverage can have on a sick elderly retiree.
We are currently attempting to verify the quotes in the article, and to find out if there is still some deadline for these Medicare-eligible retirees to get enrolled in a plan to preserve all their retiree health coverage. As soon as we have more detail and confirmation, we will post it here.
Happy new year.
What about those retirees who are very sick and whose lives depend on costly medical care? What about those retirees who couldn't read or understand their letter (perhaps because of illiteracy, macular degeneration, mental incapacity, low education, etc.)? What about those retirees who never got the letter? What about the covered spouses and children of these retirees who never saw any such letter?
Even for those retirees and dependants who understood, there are literally 57 different drug plans available, each with different premiums, copayments, deductibles, and formularies. How could they possibly digest all that and make a good choice? The only real way to compare 57 different plans is through Medicare.gov's interactive Plan Finder database. How many of these retirees are computer-savvy enough to go through that process? Even if you can type and navigate the website, try typing "hydrochlorothiazide" or "metronidazole" without errors. And all this under the deadline of the busiest time of the year for many, the holiday season, with plenty of snow and cold to contend with.
Then those retirees who were also members of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) got letters saying that, though the union disagreed with the coal companies that they could take away retiree health coverage for failure to enroll in a drug plan, the union was recommending that affected retirees go ahead and comply by enrolling while they advocated their position.
For those who got the letters, understood them, and needed help choosing and enrolling in a plan, there was very limited help available. The process of choosing a plan can be time consuming, even using the interactive web-based Plan Finder. This is especially true for folks who take numerous prescription drugs. The toll-free numbers for Medicare, many of the drug companies, and other helping agencies were virtually impossible to get through on during those last weeks of December. One Morgantown senior said she finally hung up after being on hold with Humana (one of the popular and cheaper plan providers) with 1 hour and 40 minutes, hoping to enroll to keep from losing her benefits. Another had a surgery scheduled for January 5, 2006. Even if she could get her healthcare reinstated after successfully enrolling, if it couldn't be done in a week, she would have to bear the huge costs of a surgery because of the lapse in coverage.
At the last possible minute, in the Gazette-Mail on Saturday, December 31, 2005, Cecil Roberts of the UMWA is quoted as saying that retirees from Peabody, Consol, Arch, and Bluestone will not lose their coverage if they have not enrolled in a drug plan by December 31, 2005.
And yet this morning we have reports of covered retirees going to pick up their monthly prescriptions at the same pharmacies they've gone to for years and being told suddenly that they have been "red-flagged," and no longer have any drug coverage at all. Even some who have successfully enrolled in plans, but have not yet gotten their cards and coverage info.
Some of these prescriptions are a matter of life and death. Imagine the impact that all this confusion and threats of having no more coverage can have on a sick elderly retiree.
We are currently attempting to verify the quotes in the article, and to find out if there is still some deadline for these Medicare-eligible retirees to get enrolled in a plan to preserve all their retiree health coverage. As soon as we have more detail and confirmation, we will post it here.
Happy new year.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Case of the Week: 12/23/05
County: Harrison
Age: 82
Our client contacted us after receiving a letter from her local Water Board that a complaint was made regarding her water meters. According to the complaint she has two water meters on her property in violation of the West Virginia Code of Sate Rules. My client had this arrangrment for more than 18 years with the authorization of the Water Board. Apparently she arranged it that way so her disabled son could reside in an adjoining trailer on her property. The letter my client recieved requested that she respond by the end of the month. I contacted the Public Service Commission and the Water Board. Under the Rules, the Water Board can make an exception. Because our client's son is disabled and the second water meter was previously authorized, the complaint will be dismissed. My client does not need to take further action and may keep both water meters.
Age: 82
Our client contacted us after receiving a letter from her local Water Board that a complaint was made regarding her water meters. According to the complaint she has two water meters on her property in violation of the West Virginia Code of Sate Rules. My client had this arrangrment for more than 18 years with the authorization of the Water Board. Apparently she arranged it that way so her disabled son could reside in an adjoining trailer on her property. The letter my client recieved requested that she respond by the end of the month. I contacted the Public Service Commission and the Water Board. Under the Rules, the Water Board can make an exception. Because our client's son is disabled and the second water meter was previously authorized, the complaint will be dismissed. My client does not need to take further action and may keep both water meters.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Case of the Week: 12/16/05
County: Randolph
Age: 62
This client contacted us when he received a bill from a health care provider that was 2 years old. The bill was for $1496. He recieved a summary from Medicare explaining the claim was made too late and he was only responsible for 20% of what Medicare would have paid had the claim been made properly. Working with a SHINE conselor, we were able to obtain a letter from CMS confirming that had the claim been submitted on time our client would have only been responsible for $110.22. Furthermore, the letter reiterated that my client is only responsible for the $110.22 eventhough Medicare never made a payment.
Age: 62
This client contacted us when he received a bill from a health care provider that was 2 years old. The bill was for $1496. He recieved a summary from Medicare explaining the claim was made too late and he was only responsible for 20% of what Medicare would have paid had the claim been made properly. Working with a SHINE conselor, we were able to obtain a letter from CMS confirming that had the claim been submitted on time our client would have only been responsible for $110.22. Furthermore, the letter reiterated that my client is only responsible for the $110.22 eventhough Medicare never made a payment.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Case of the Week: 12/9/05
County: Harrison
Age: 73
This client contacted us because she was having trouble collecting on a life insurance policy for her deceased husband. I contacted the insurance company on my client's behalf to check on the status of the claim and to provide information on where to find my client's deceased husband's medical records. The company acted quickly and reviewed my client's claim. After reviewing the claim it was determine that due to an error the policy was null and viod; however, the insurance company refunded the $700 her husband paid into the policy.
Age: 73
This client contacted us because she was having trouble collecting on a life insurance policy for her deceased husband. I contacted the insurance company on my client's behalf to check on the status of the claim and to provide information on where to find my client's deceased husband's medical records. The company acted quickly and reviewed my client's claim. After reviewing the claim it was determine that due to an error the policy was null and viod; however, the insurance company refunded the $700 her husband paid into the policy.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Case of the Week: 11/18/05
County: Hardy
Age: 76
This client is the legal guardian for her adult mentally disabled daughter. A doctor recommended sterilization for the daughter; however, declined to perform it without prior court authorization. My client felt that as a guardian she should be able to make this decision on her daughter's behalf. After researching the West Virginia Guardianship and Conservator Act I explained that some actions, like terminating parental rights, require prior court authorization. It is possible that since the procedure will render her daughter childless, prior court authorization is required. I also provided her with a copy of the relevant statute.
Age: 76
This client is the legal guardian for her adult mentally disabled daughter. A doctor recommended sterilization for the daughter; however, declined to perform it without prior court authorization. My client felt that as a guardian she should be able to make this decision on her daughter's behalf. After researching the West Virginia Guardianship and Conservator Act I explained that some actions, like terminating parental rights, require prior court authorization. It is possible that since the procedure will render her daughter childless, prior court authorization is required. I also provided her with a copy of the relevant statute.
Case of the Week: 11/11/12
County: Fayette
Age: 77
This client is the subject of predatory lending. She contacted us regarding her mortgage which she had fallen behind on. I reviewed the notice of foreclosing she received and the terms of her loan. One aspect of this case that hinted at predatory lending concerns insurance. Apparently the Mortgagor was charging the client for insurance even though she had her own. Also, the Mortgagor was very uncooperative about providing for a workout option for the client. I referred the client to Mountain State Justice. Interestingly, Mountain State Justice currently has other cases against the same Morgator who is a predatory lending.
Age: 77
This client is the subject of predatory lending. She contacted us regarding her mortgage which she had fallen behind on. I reviewed the notice of foreclosing she received and the terms of her loan. One aspect of this case that hinted at predatory lending concerns insurance. Apparently the Mortgagor was charging the client for insurance even though she had her own. Also, the Mortgagor was very uncooperative about providing for a workout option for the client. I referred the client to Mountain State Justice. Interestingly, Mountain State Justice currently has other cases against the same Morgator who is a predatory lending.
Case of the Week: 11/4/05
County: Berkeley
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding bankruptcy. After determining that he is not judgment proof, I explained the changes in the new bankruptcy law and the differences in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. He was mostly concerned about his car. I explained that under Chapter 7 his car can be reaffirmed or if below $2,400, can be completely exempted. Under Chapter 13 all property can be kept; however, since the only asset the client had was his car, Chapter 7 was recommended.
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding bankruptcy. After determining that he is not judgment proof, I explained the changes in the new bankruptcy law and the differences in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. He was mostly concerned about his car. I explained that under Chapter 7 his car can be reaffirmed or if below $2,400, can be completely exempted. Under Chapter 13 all property can be kept; however, since the only asset the client had was his car, Chapter 7 was recommended.
Case of the Week: 12/2/05
County: Mineral
Age: 77
This client contacted us after an energy company put power lines up over his property to an adjoining lot. He lives in a housing development and his understanding of the convenants and provisions is that an easement exits only for water, sewage, and drainage. I reviewed the Restrictive Covenants and Provisions and determined that although the provision in questions include water, sewage, and drainage, it does not specifically exclude electric. A reasonable reading of the document is that the energy company has an easement to the adjoining property. I explained a court may give it a different interpretation. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion on a term or provision in a document, the court can make a determination to end the conflict.
Age: 77
This client contacted us after an energy company put power lines up over his property to an adjoining lot. He lives in a housing development and his understanding of the convenants and provisions is that an easement exits only for water, sewage, and drainage. I reviewed the Restrictive Covenants and Provisions and determined that although the provision in questions include water, sewage, and drainage, it does not specifically exclude electric. A reasonable reading of the document is that the energy company has an easement to the adjoining property. I explained a court may give it a different interpretation. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion on a term or provision in a document, the court can make a determination to end the conflict.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Case of the Week: 10/28/2005
County: Cabell
Age: 62
Our client needed to know what sort of planning she needs to do to ensure that her adopted daughter will be cared for by her aunt should our client become unable to do so. I researched the West Virginia Code for available planning tools. Explained to the client that she can appoint a designated standby guardian should she become unable to care for her daughter. Explained the process for designating a standby guardian and sent her information about Conservatorship/Guardianship.
Age: 62
Our client needed to know what sort of planning she needs to do to ensure that her adopted daughter will be cared for by her aunt should our client become unable to do so. I researched the West Virginia Code for available planning tools. Explained to the client that she can appoint a designated standby guardian should she become unable to care for her daughter. Explained the process for designating a standby guardian and sent her information about Conservatorship/Guardianship.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Governor Signs Executive Order to Implement Olmstead Plan
On October 12, 2005 Governor Manchin signed Executive Order 11-05 requiring the implementation of the state's Olmstead Plan, Building Inclusing Communities: Keeping the Promise. This has been a long time coming. An Executive Order by then-Governor Wise in September 2000 created our state's Olmstead Task Force, which was to create a comprehensive plan by June 2001. The deadline was extended to December, and though a plan was completed and delivered to Governor Wise, it languished on his desk and was never signed. The Task Force was later resurrected, the plan revised, and finally now will be implemented.
Though most advocates feel that this is progress toward inclusion in West Virginia, one potential negative outcome is that the state may be able to use the existence of the plan as a defense to an Olmstead lawsuit. In other words, if a person sued the state for his institutionalization caused by the failure to provide appropriate community services, the state might be able to win claiming it had an effective comprehensive plan that unfortunately the services needed were not part of because of cost.
Though most advocates feel that this is progress toward inclusion in West Virginia, one potential negative outcome is that the state may be able to use the existence of the plan as a defense to an Olmstead lawsuit. In other words, if a person sued the state for his institutionalization caused by the failure to provide appropriate community services, the state might be able to win claiming it had an effective comprehensive plan that unfortunately the services needed were not part of because of cost.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Case of the Week: 10/14/05
County: Taylor
Age: 72
Client contacted us because significant sum of money was taken from her account after she gave personal information out over the phone. The person soliciting her convinced her he was associated with her bank and was trying to update her informaiton. However, he was located in Peru with an outfit that scams people. Our client immediately filed a police report and contacted us. I explained what identity theft is, steps she can take to protect herself from further theft, and provided her with an ID Theft Affidavit to dispute the unauthorized withdraw from her account. Before she contacted us her bank was unwilling to get the money back or close her account. Armed with the ID Theft Affidavit, she got her account closed. Her bank also assured her that they are working to get her money back.
Age: 72
Client contacted us because significant sum of money was taken from her account after she gave personal information out over the phone. The person soliciting her convinced her he was associated with her bank and was trying to update her informaiton. However, he was located in Peru with an outfit that scams people. Our client immediately filed a police report and contacted us. I explained what identity theft is, steps she can take to protect herself from further theft, and provided her with an ID Theft Affidavit to dispute the unauthorized withdraw from her account. Before she contacted us her bank was unwilling to get the money back or close her account. Armed with the ID Theft Affidavit, she got her account closed. Her bank also assured her that they are working to get her money back.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Case of the Week: 10/7/05
County: Wood
Age: 82
The client needed to know if her deed creates a right of survivorship with her daughter. I reviewed her deed and researched the relevant code provisions and case law. I explained that while West Virginia has done away with the assumption that joint tenancies create right of survivorship, her deed states that the relationship is as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. Arguably, this creates a right of survivorship.
Age: 82
The client needed to know if her deed creates a right of survivorship with her daughter. I reviewed her deed and researched the relevant code provisions and case law. I explained that while West Virginia has done away with the assumption that joint tenancies create right of survivorship, her deed states that the relationship is as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. Arguably, this creates a right of survivorship.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Case of the Week: 9/30/05
County: Jackson
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding his rights to an undivided interest in property he inherited. The co-tenants have been removing hay from the property and he needed legal counsel. After researching the WV Code and case law, I explained that he may have a right to an accounting to see if the co-tenants have committed waste; however, for hay, co-tenants have lawful authority to remove. Also explained the client may ask the court to partition the property if the dispute persists.
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding his rights to an undivided interest in property he inherited. The co-tenants have been removing hay from the property and he needed legal counsel. After researching the WV Code and case law, I explained that he may have a right to an accounting to see if the co-tenants have committed waste; however, for hay, co-tenants have lawful authority to remove. Also explained the client may ask the court to partition the property if the dispute persists.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Case of the Week: 9/19/05
County: McDowell
Age: 66
Our client contracted to have various projects done on her home. The contractor failed to provide a new furnace as per the contract and to perform other tasks as promised. I reviewed the contract and explained that she is still within the statute of limitations to bring a cause of action against the contractor for breach of contract. If damages exceed $5,000, then she will need to file her claim in Circuit Court. However, if her damages are less than $5,000 she may file in the Magistrate Court without the assistance of a lawyer. Explained to the client how to bring a claim for damages under a breach of contract theory in Magistrate Court.
Age: 66
Our client contracted to have various projects done on her home. The contractor failed to provide a new furnace as per the contract and to perform other tasks as promised. I reviewed the contract and explained that she is still within the statute of limitations to bring a cause of action against the contractor for breach of contract. If damages exceed $5,000, then she will need to file her claim in Circuit Court. However, if her damages are less than $5,000 she may file in the Magistrate Court without the assistance of a lawyer. Explained to the client how to bring a claim for damages under a breach of contract theory in Magistrate Court.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Case of the Week: 9/5/05
County: Preston
Age: 61
Client received a charge on her credit card statement for MBNA's Privacy Assistance Program. She never activated this program. I contacted MBNA and requested that she be disenrolled from the program and refunded what she paid toward it. MBNA reviewed her account, disenrolled her from the program, and happily refunded her money.
Age: 61
Client received a charge on her credit card statement for MBNA's Privacy Assistance Program. She never activated this program. I contacted MBNA and requested that she be disenrolled from the program and refunded what she paid toward it. MBNA reviewed her account, disenrolled her from the program, and happily refunded her money.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Case of the Week: 8/19/05
County: Mineral
Age: 83
Our client had to leave her residence to live in an apartment complex that could meet her health needs. She was assured by management that since her move was due to medical necessity, she would not face any penalties. She provided the apartment management with the appropriate notice, including a letter from her physician stating she requires 24 hour assistance. However, after moving, she received a letter from the apartment management that she owed back rent, a penalty fee for early termination, and charges for repairs. I contacted the managing company and provided them with the letter she got from her doctor. The managing company reviewed her case, recognized their error, and dropped the charges for the early termination and back rent. The client recognizes the need to pay for the repairs.
Age: 83
Our client had to leave her residence to live in an apartment complex that could meet her health needs. She was assured by management that since her move was due to medical necessity, she would not face any penalties. She provided the apartment management with the appropriate notice, including a letter from her physician stating she requires 24 hour assistance. However, after moving, she received a letter from the apartment management that she owed back rent, a penalty fee for early termination, and charges for repairs. I contacted the managing company and provided them with the letter she got from her doctor. The managing company reviewed her case, recognized their error, and dropped the charges for the early termination and back rent. The client recognizes the need to pay for the repairs.
Case of the Week: 8/12/05
County: Morgan
Age: 70
Client contacted us after the DMV gave him notice to turn in his license plate. I reviewed the summons he recieved and researched the law. I explained that all motorists must maintain insurance and carry proof of insurance in West Virginia. I further explained that in his situation, under the West Virginia State Code, he will get his registration reinstated once he gets insurance and can show proof of insurance.
Age: 70
Client contacted us after the DMV gave him notice to turn in his license plate. I reviewed the summons he recieved and researched the law. I explained that all motorists must maintain insurance and carry proof of insurance in West Virginia. I further explained that in his situation, under the West Virginia State Code, he will get his registration reinstated once he gets insurance and can show proof of insurance.
Case of the Week: 7/29/05
County: Kanawha
Age: 74
Client contacted us regarding an overpayment Social Secuirty claims she recieved under Supplemental Security Insurance for failure to report changes in her income. After reviewing a letter from Social Security noting the overpayment and her financial situation, I determined that she might be qualified for a waiver; however, I explained to her that all participants have a duty to report changes in their income and resources. I explained how she should proceed with her request and provided her with an overpayment waiver form.
Age: 74
Client contacted us regarding an overpayment Social Secuirty claims she recieved under Supplemental Security Insurance for failure to report changes in her income. After reviewing a letter from Social Security noting the overpayment and her financial situation, I determined that she might be qualified for a waiver; however, I explained to her that all participants have a duty to report changes in their income and resources. I explained how she should proceed with her request and provided her with an overpayment waiver form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)