PA Courts, then Joe Paterno

What can we learn from the tortuous events of last week here in Central Pennsylvania, which unfolded following criminal charges filed against a former Penn State University coach alleged to have molested or assaulted many young boys?  See: Thirty-Third Investigating Grand Jury Presentment (Nov., 2011; 23 pp.; PDF).

Juvenile dependency proceedings can result from similar initial complaints, then investigations, of child neglect, abuse, or assault by a caretaker. The Presentment does not mention the word "dependency", but the common theme is protection of minors.

We cannot change past events.  People involved can be criticized, fired, imprisoned, and sued, as a judgment; but are those actions a healing "remedy"?

rem·e·dy  (rm-d)    n. pl. rem·e·dies
1. Something, such as medicine or therapy, that relieves pain, cures disease, or corrects a disorder.
2. Something that corrects an evil, fault, or error.
3. Law A legal order of preventing or redressing a wrong or enforcing a right. * * *

One commentator today recommended some remedies that could be initiated by someone at the center of the controversies.  In his article How Paterno can promote healing, posted by CNN (11/14/11), Prof. Jeffrey W. Pollard, of George Mason University (and a past president of both the American Board of Counseling Psychology and the American Academy of Counseling Psychology), made a suggestion -- to Joe Paterno:

Ironically, it is Paterno who is now uniquely able to help child sexual abuse victims summon the courage they need and to use this tragedy as a teachable moment that will benefit many. What should he do? * * *

Paterno is in a unique position to educate the nation that reporting child sexual abuse, and supporting those who have been harmed, often involves more courage than standing up to a blitzing all-American linebacker. 

Late in life, baseball legend Mickey Mantle admitted that his hard drinking had harmed his family. It also led to alcohol-induced cirrhosis of the liver, and Mantle's untimely death at age 63. In a Sports Illustrated cover story and other forums, Mantle urged others not to do what he had done and to get treatment for alcoholism. 

Through humility, and concern for others, it was Mantle's finest hour, on or off the field. 

Paterno's finest hour, which would facilitate healing for child sexual abuse victims, greater public education and more offenders' being locked up could still be ahead of him. 

More than any other play Paterno has had to call, this is clearly the most important one. But this is not a game: it is about children's lives. Let us hope and pray he gets it right.

If Paterno did so, he would be in good company -- Pennsylvania judges and the Commonwealth's court system.

A set of criminal prosecutions in 2008 arising from Luzerne County, PA, investigations, simply labeled thereafter by the media as the "Kids for Cash Scandal", is described in Wikipedia:

The "Cash for Kids" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were accused of accepting money from the co-owner and builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh sentences on juveniles brought before their courts in order to ensure that the detention centers would be utilized.

Ciavarella and Conahan pleaded guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement * * *.  [Reparagraphed; footnotes omitted.]

Responses to that scandal were not limited to criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits, but led into extensive study and then institutional changes, as represented by the Pennsylvania Courts' issuance of the Pennsylvania Dependency Benchbook (May, 2010):

The Pennsylvania Dependency Benchbook is a comprehensive reference guide designed to assist family court judges and child dependency practitioners in the process of helping abused and neglected children and their families. The Benchbook was written by Pennsylvania judges for Pennsylvania judges. * * *

The document is a comprehensive resource that combines Pennsylvania law, organized pragmatically to allow quick and efficient use, with a series of state and national best practices that will provide judges and practitioners, from the least to most experienced, with the best possible information to support children and families safely.

Read the Introductory Letter from Justice Max Baer

View The Benchbook Online

Download The Benchbook (PDF– 2.7 MB)

See: Press Release, Supreme Court Releases New Dependency Guide (07/23/10) which announced the "guide developed by Pennsylvania trial judges to aid lawyers and other judges in deciding whether, in juvenile dependency cases, a child should be removed from the home." See also:  Pennsylvania Dependency Benchbook Resource Companion.

The Benchbook was a product of those intensive investigations and self-examinations, which also resulted in creation of the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, in July, 2009, as noted in that Wikipedia article:

In the aftermath of the federal charges and defendant pleas, the Pennsylvania General Assembly moved to create a commission to investigate the entire set of circumstances surrounding the miscarriage of justice in Luzerne County. 

Sponsored by Representative Todd Eachus of Butler Township in Luzerne County, House Bill 1648 established the Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice in July 2009. The commission comprises 11 members, appointed from each branch of government in Pennsylvania, with four members chosen by the judiciary, four by the legislature and three by the governor. 

In signing the legislation on August 7, 2009, Governor Ed Rendell castigated Ciavarella and Conahan, saying they "violated the rights of as many as 6000 young people by denying them basic rights to counsel and handing down outrageously excessive sentences. The lives of these young people and their families were changed forever." 

Scheduled to meet a minimum of once per month, the commission was organized to investigate the actions of and damages caused by the two judges and review the state of the Luzerne County courts left in the wake of their tenures. The commission was given power of subpoena and was required to complete its work and report its recommendations and findings to the three branches of state government by May 31, 2010.

The Commission's Final Report, along with a Summary of Recommendations, was issued in May, 2010.

Awareness can be expanded, lessons can be learned, change can occur; and that is what we can remember, and how we can find inspiration.  

It is how we react to find a "remedy" to wrongs that defines our character and that alters the future.  That re-action can become our legacy and others' hope:

Mickey [Mantle] died in Dallas on August 13, 1995.  During the first Yankee home game after his death, Eddie Layton played “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” on the organ because Mickey had once told him it was his favorite song.

In his eulogy, sportscaster Bob Costas described Mickey Mantle  as “a fragile hero to whom we had an emotional attachment so strong and lasting that it defied logic.” 

He added: “In the last year of his life, Mickey Mantle, always so hard on himself, finally came to accept and appreciate the distinction between a role model and a hero. The first, he often was not. The second, he always will be. And, in the end, people got it.”  

-- Mickey Mantle: The Man Behind the Legend, posted by Self-Help Daily

Update: 11/15/11:

In "Joe Paterno legacy needs new final chapter" (11/14/11) posted on ESPN's Big Ten Blog, Brian Bennett argued that the "legacy of Paterno" could, and should, be altered by his future efforts against child abuse:

It's inarguable that JoePa has done a lot of good for a lot of people in his life. Now he must undertake his greatest challenge. He cannot let this be the final chapter of his story.

When Paterno emerges from his cocoon, he has only one choice for going forward. He should spend the rest of his time working for victims of child abuse. * * *

Paterno could travel around the state of Pennsylvania and across the country leading fundraisers and charity events, telling his story and letting everyone know how truly sorry he is.

He could star in public-service announcements and lead a movement to locate all the victims and give them whatever help they need. Paterno knows how to rally teams together, and he has led fundraising campaigns before. * * *

[H]e can spend the rest of his life atoning and doing whatever he can to ease the pain of those victims -- and working to make sure a similar situation never happens again. That's a much more fitting final act. * * *

Update:  07/23/12:

Coach Paterno's debilitating lung cancer leading to his death on January 22, 2012, at age 85, may have prevented him from embarking on a new crusade for awareness and remediation of child sexual abuse; but others here in Central Pennsylvania will do so as part of an educational mission.

Today, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) issued program sanctions against, and required remedial actions by, the Pennsylvania State University arising from Sandusky-related child sex abuse crimes.  See:  NCAA's statement, Penn State failures draw unprecedented NCAA sanctions (07/23/12).

The NCAA's harsh judgment of Penn State and its clear warnings to other educational institutions, stands in contrast to the accepting and remorseful message, President's statement regarding NCAA decree, posted on the Penn  State website by its current leader, Rodney Erickson.

* * * Penn State accepts the penalties and corrective actions announced today by the NCAA. With today’s announcement and the action it requires of us, the University takes a significant step forward.

The NCAA ruling holds the University accountable for the failure of those in power to protect children and insists that all areas of the University community are held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity.

The NCAA also mandates that Penn State become a national leader to help victims of child sexual assault and to promote awareness across our nation. Specifically, the University will pay $12 million a year for the next five years into a special endowment created to fund programs for the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse. This total of $60 million can never reduce the pain suffered by victims, but will help provide them hope and healing. * * *

It is important to know we are entering a new chapter at Penn State and making necessary changes. We must create a culture in which people are not afraid to speak up, management is not compartmentalized, all are expected to demonstrate the highest ethical standards, and the operating philosophy is open, collegial, and collaborative. * * *

The NCAA decree was entered voluntarily by Penn State before the announcement was made.  According to the NCAA's Statement:

Penn State fully cooperated with the NCAA on this examination of the issues and took decisive action in removing individuals in leadership who were culpable.

"The actions already taken by the new Penn State Board of Trustees chair Karen Peetz and Penn State President Rodney Erickson have demonstrated a strong desire and determination to take the steps necessary for Penn State to right these severe wrongs," said Emmert.

I said many months ago in my blog posting: "It is how we react to find a 'remedy' to wrongs that defines our character and that alters the future."

These rigorous pledged actions, in the process of fulfillment over not just the ensuing five years, but beyond, will emphasize values of caring over competition, will encourage us at all levels to be aware, responsive, and accountable, and thereby will protect helpless children from future abuse.

This is not punishment; it is a proper "remedy".  Such processes should occur not only at Penn State, or in Pennsylvania, but across America.

Genealogy Traces Roots

This morning, Tuesday, April 20, 2010, WITF-FM's Radio SmartTalk focused on genealogy -- the study of families and the tracing of their lineages and history -- in an episode entitled Family Trees and Genealogy:

Living in the early 21st century has its perks – among them, access to information like never before. DNA testing can help you trace your roots. Social networking sites can help you reconnect with relatives. A lot of folks are taking advantage of these and other tools to develop a family tree.

We welcome your questions about genealogy for Jonathan Stayer and Aaron McWilliams, archivists with the Pennsylvania State Archives. They'll offer some insights into how to research your family's history, track down records, and get it all organized.

We'll also talk with a couple who have just completed an extensive family tree – Radio Smart Talk host Craig Cohen's parents, Ed and Sheilah Cohen. They've compiled the tree, records, biographies, and assorted family anecdotes. They'll share some of what they turned up – including some stories and connections to history, and some of the sleuthing they did to fill in some missing pieces of their family's past.

The hour's discussion , which can be heard via the Internet using a multimedia computer, was a mixture of "how to" steps in a genealogical study using Pennsylvania's extensive and available resources, which are summarized online, and also "done that, been there" experiences and emotions shared by the host's parents, who researched their Russian ancestry into a printed book.

I listened with interest from two points of view.

First, as a lawyer, I know that, where an intestacy occurs upon a death or where a Last Will makes class bequests or invokes substitution provisions, a "family tree" will determine what interests become distributable to living heirs. But such investigations involve just a few generations. That exercise is more like a study of kinship to pass possessions or wealth.

Second, as a young man nearly forty years ago, my father presented me with a Hendershot genealogy, researched by one of my distant relatives, Alfred E. Hendershot, of Ohio. He prepared a Genealogy of the Hendershot Family in America (1961), spanning from my generation back to the immigration of an ancestor from Germany in the early 1700's (as I recall). I found it referenced online, along with a database at ancestry.com. That book traced my deep roots.

That sense of personal history -- of connection to people who lived in the past, and of our legacy of their hopes and beliefs -- is important.

I urge listening to that session.

Autopsies' Open Records Inspections Delayed

The Associated Press reported, on December 29, 2009, in a brief article entitled Pa. judge: Coroner can delay filing autopsy report that "[a] county judge in south-central Pennsylvania says a coroner doesn't have to release the means of death of a 21-year-old man until the end of January."

Cumberland County Coroner Michael Norris refused to release the means of death for Shippensburg University football player Thomas Rainey, a Landisville man who died in an accident in April. Authorities have said the death wasn't suspicious.

WGAL-TV asked President Judge Edgar Bayley to order the coroner to release the information.

Bayley says the Right-to-Know Law that took effect this year doesn't supersede the state Coroner's Act. That law requires the autopsy report to be filed within 30 days of the end of the calendar year in which the deaths occurred.

I have not read the county court's opinion disposing of the issue, because I did not see it posted online yet among available Cumberland County, PA Judicial Opinions.

However, one can read the entire record of the underlying administrative proceedings and the final determination opinion & order that was appealed to the Cumberland County Court, by way of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, under its Docket No. AP 2009-0337, which includes that Office's Final Determination Opinion, dated July 24, 2009 (PDF, 10 pages).

That Final Determination recited the arguments of the parties, and noted the conflict in the new, sweeping Right-to-Know Law effective January 1, 2009, versus Pennsylvania Coroner's Laws, including the “Coroner’s Act,” 16 P.S. §§ 1214 and 1231-1260, as contained in the County Code, Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's January 22, 2009 opinion in Penn Jersey Advance, Inc., d/b/a Easton Publishing Company v. Grim, 599 Pa. 534 (2009) had made it clear that autopsy reports are official records, and thus are open to the public. But, in a footnote, the effect of the new Right-to-Know Law was left uncertain:

We note that section 708(b)(20) of the recently-effective Act 3 of 2008, the “Right-to-Know Law,” provides an exception from public access for certain records relating to autopsies. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(20).

The Right-to-Know Law further provides that “[i]f the provisions of this act regarding access to records conflict with any other Federal or State law, the provisions of this act shall not apply.” See 65 P.S. § 67.3101.1.

The Right-to-Know Law became effective on January 1, 2009, see 65 P.S. § 67.3104(3), and thus has no application to the events underlying this case..

Accordingly, we express no opinion at this time on the relationship between the Coroner’s Act and the Right-to-Know Law. [Paragraphing applied.]

The question then became, when does an autopsy report become such a public record available for inspection under the new open records law?

This one trial court now says: within 30 days of the end of the calendar year in which the death occurred, pursuant to the Coroner's laws, which prevail over the Right-to-Know law.

That can be a long time for news organizations wanting to report a story. So, stay tuned to see if that decision is appealed further or if legislative change is advocated.

Attorney in PA Indicted for Will Fraud

On September 25, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Press Release entitled "Allentown Attorney and Two Others Indicted for Fraud Involving Couple Killed in Plane Crash" (PDF, 2 pages) that announced the formal criminal indictment of a Pennsylvania lawyer, his son, and a physician on federal fraud charges arising from alleged forgeries of wills.

The Indictment, available online (PDF, 9 pages), identified federal law violations under 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy to commit wire fraud - 1 count), 18 U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud - 2 counts), and 18 U.S.C. §2 (aiding and abetting) involving various of the named defendants.

Reporter Matt Birkbeck published an article entitled "Feds: Karoly faked wills" on September 26, 2008, in The Morning Call (Allentown, PA), which reported the underlying circumstances and the alleged criminal behavior:

Two weeks after his brother Peter and sister-in-law were killed in a plane crash in February 2007, John P. Karoly Jr. learned he wasn't named as a beneficiary in their wills.

Karoly, a high-profile Lehigh Valley lawyer, requested a delay in probating the wills, claiming Peter and his wife, Dr. Lauren Angstadt, filed updated wills in 2006 that gave John Karoly a significant portion of their multimillion-dollar estate.But the new wills were fraudulent, according to a federal grand jury in Philadelphia, which on Thursday indicted Karoly, 58, his son John ''J.P.'' Karoly III, 28, and Dr. John J. Shane, 72, charging them with taking part in a carefully crafted scheme to defraud the estates of Peter Karoly and Angstadt by using the phony wills. * * *

The prosecuting U.S. Attorney was quoted in the article:

''The defendants conspired in a fraudulent scheme to forge the wills of Peter Karoly and Lauren Angstadt in order to unlawfully benefit from their tragic deaths,'' said acting U.S. Attorney Laurie Magid in a prepared statement.

''Their actions were not only illegal, they subverted the true intentions of the victims.''

Karoly, his son and Shane were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, and aiding and abetting after a 19-month investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Allentown and the FBI.

If convicted, each faces up to 45 years in prison and a $750,000 fine. * * *

I referenced the original dispute among family members and the surprising, subsequent involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in prior postings:

• Will Contest from Bethlehem, PA (04/10/07);
• Trusts & Estates ... and the FBI: Pt. I. (05/22/07); and
• Trusts & Estates ... and the FBI: Pt. II (05/23/07).

An article entitled "Attorney John Karoly indicted on charges he faked millionaire brother's will" posted September 25, 2008, by The Express-Times (Lehigh Valley region, PA), identified the other subjects of the indictments, in addition to John P. Karoly, Jr.:

Also named in the indictment are John J. Shane, a doctor who often provides expert testimony for Karoly at trial, and Karoly's son, John P. Karoly III. The younger Karoly works in his father's South Whitehall Township law office.

Each is charged with single counts of conspiracy and two felony counts of wire fraud, according to federal authorities. * * *

The charges were denied in a statement prepared by Robert Goldman, the attorney representing Mr. Karoly, who was quoted in that article:

"While there may be some who were angered by Mr. Karoly's successful lawsuits against errant police officers and now cheer the announced charges, the broader community will see the case for what it is," Goldman said.

"To make the ultimate issue blatantly clear, the individuals charged in today's indictment are not guilty and will vigorously defend against the allegations."

For a similar Associated Press news report, see: "Feds: Pa. lawyer faked will after brother's death" (09/25/08) by Maryclaire Dale, published by The Times-Leader (Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA).

A related civil suit over the disputed wills remains pending in the Orphans Court Division, Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. That will contest was commenced by two of Karoly's sisters, Kim Karoly Luciano and Joanne Karoly Billman, who claimed that John P. Karoly Jr. created a will to replace one Peter Karoly had drawn up in 1985.

Such allegations in the past generally were examined in civil actions brought by parties with standing to sue. To the extent criminal behavior was uncovered, referrals were made under state criminal laws to a local district attorney to be heard in a common pleas court.

Regardless of the outcome in this case, its prosecution alone could be trend-setting in a progressive way that could heighten prosecution of elder abuse generally.

To date, this case involves application of federal fraud and conspiracy laws, investigation by the FBI, examination & prosecution by the U.S. Attorney's Office, with anticipated resolution in a federal court.

This case could become a template for future prosecution of other cases involving intentional fraud in the preparation of testamentary documents offered for probate or for claim.

Update: 04/07/13:

The Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County issued a ruling that the contestants to the wills did not meet the required burden of proof to overturn the questioned wills. No federal charges were pursued by the Justice Department on such matters. See: PA EE&F Law Blog posting Karoly Estates Will Forgery Case Ruling (04/07/13).

"Elder Abuse" Websites Warn Personally

Publicity on the Internet is one of many reactions to alleged "elder abuse" in a family.

For relatives outraged or harmed by perceived elder abuse, the Internet now provides a free forum for stating personal experiences, and for advocating awareness & remedy in one's own style.

This was the apparent motivation for the website Steal An Estate created in June, 2007 by Eric Clayton Baxter, of New Orleans, Louisiana.

I reviewed that website critically in my EE&F Law Blog "How To . . . Steal an Estate?" (06/21/07). Contrary to the subsequent response of its author, I understood his motivation and approach. I just disagreed with the tone of his presentation, which could do more harm than good if read by a person with bad intentions. That site has not been active since June, 2007, but is found still in Internet searches.

A reader of that website now seeks publicity for his own websites that chronicle his personal experience of perceived elder exploitation.

I recently received an email message from Gary Buchan, of Florida (gasman@gbso.net), promoting his two websites chronicling exploitation of parents from his viewpoint -- www.russellbuchan.com and www.fairnessforfamilies.com.

It is difficult for families to understand how far siblings will go to satisfy to their own personal pursuit of greed and animosity.

Many of the points listed in "How to steal an estate" were warnings signs of activity occurring in our own family. The Internet was not a readily available information source when our family situation began in 1994 and the effects are still lingering today.

You are welcomed to link to my sites and discuss the reality of our family’s situation in today’s world of elder and parental abuse.

Gary sent nearly identical email messages to other organizations promoting his websites. For example, see: "Elder Abuse by Family Members" posted on Our Alzheimer's (08/24/08), sponsored by HealthCentral.

I received another unsolicited email from Shelley Kuziak, a resident of Bloomsburg (Columbia County), PA promoting her website Stop Guardian Abuse.
According to that website, NASGA stands for "National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse", which appears to be active mainly through its blog.

I do not vouch for the information on these personal websites. You must evaluate for yourself what you read.

However, for more conventional, universal, institutionally-assembled information about elder abuse, see the online resources posted by the Elder Law Clinic at Penn State - Dickinson Law School (Carlisle & State College, PA), which include:

• Federal Crime and Elder Abuse Related Agencies
• Other Crime and Elder Abuse Organizations
• Other Crime and Elder Abuse Resources

LTCI Scrutinized by Feds

On July 24, 2008, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce held the second in a series of hearings on the subject "Long-Term Care Insurance: Are Consumers Protected for the Long Term?"

The hearing was preceded by issuance on July 23rd of a Press Release, entitled "Senate, House Members Release Results of GAO Report on Long-Term Care Insurance."

The referenced report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled "Long-Term Care Insurance: Oversight of Rate Setting and Claims Settlement Practices" (June, 2008; GAO No. 08-712; PDF, 41 pages), surveyed "the consumer protections states have in place for those who purchase long-term care insurance (LTCI)."

The Press Release noted the purpose of the GAO's Report:

Due to the rapid aging of America’s population, the marketplace for long-term care services is expected to expand significantly. Private LTCI has emerged as one possible way individuals can prepare for their long-term care needs later in life.

In their request to GAO, members of Congress expressed their interest in examining the frequency with which consumers are experiencing denial of benefits and exorbitant rate increases.

In light of such practices, the GAO report examined the robustness of states’ rate setting standards and the rules for settling of benefit denials. * * *

These were the essential findings of the GAO's Report on LTCI:

GAO found that rate increases for LTCI policies fluctuate widely from state to state and plan to plan. For example, one company cited in the report repeatedly raised premiums, resulting in a cumulative increase of more than 70 percent since 1991, while another company has raised premiums only once since 1975.

According to the report, rate stability standards, which are designed to protect consumers against sharp premium increases, have now been adopted by more than half of all states.

However, because many states have not yet adopted these standards, a vast number of consumers are still left unprotected. Additionally, because the rate standards are so new, state regulators are unsure of how successful they will be in moderating future premium increases.

GAO also reviewed claims settled by LTCI companies in ten states by evaluating consumer complaints. The report found that standards for the timely payment of consumer claims varied significantly by state, with “timely” being defined as five days in one state and 45 days in another. One state did not have a timeliness requirement at all.

GAO also noted that some states are considering implementing an external appeals process for adjudicating disputed claims. * * *

In prior blog entries, I noted the increased promotion by the federal and many state governments, including Pennsylvania, of private long-term care insurance. See: PA EE&F Law Blog postings "PA Joins "Own Your Future" LTCI Campaign" (03/28/08), and "PA to Promote Long-Term Care Insurance" (03/12/08). I expressed concerns about adequate state regulatory review and remedies for policy purchasers & claimants of LTCI coverage.

The GAO's Report acknowledges such concerns, notes varying enforcement measures presently, and recommends further scrutiny of LTCI issuers and policies, given the increasing federal and state government promotion of such private coverage:

The federal government expects that as many as 30 states will have Long-Term Care Partnership programs in place by the end of this year. These programs encourage the private purchase of LTCI and feature state-approved plans that combine private LTCI with possible add-on Medicaid coverage in policies that allow consumers to protect some portion of their accumulated financial assets.

Many state officials, as well as LTCI providers, are enthusiastically supporting rollout of these Partnership programs. As programs of this nature unfold across the country, the GAO report’s findings make it clear that consumers who are urged by state governments to purchase these plans must have access to comprehensive, accurate information about Partnership-approved plans to determine whether they are a sound and affordable choice for them. * * *

Those witnesses who offered testimony at the recent House subcommittee hearing regarding LTCI included two from Pennsylvania. Each witness provided a prepared statement or presentation, available online, as follows:

Panel I:

• Statement of Ms. Bonnie Burns (PDF, 18 pages), Training and Policy Specialist, California Health Advocates, of Scotts Valley, CA

• Power Point Slide Presentation and Statement of Marc A. Cohen, Ph.D. (PDF, 12 pages), President, LifePlans, Inc., of Waltham, MA

• Statement of Mr. Al Bode (PDF, 17 pages), retired teacher & son of a parent in long-term care, of Charles City, IA

• Statement of Mr. Jack E. Vogelsong (PDF, 14 pages), Chief, Division of Long Term Living, Outreach and Education, Pennsylvania Department of Aging, of Harrisburg, PA

• Statement of Mr. John E. Dicken (PDF, 23 pages), Director, Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability Office, of Washington, D.C.

Panel II:

• Statement of The Honorable Sean Dilweg (PDF, 28 pages), Commissioner of Insurance, State of Wisconsin, of Madison, WI

• Statement of The Honorable Eric Dinallo (PDF, 15 pages), Superintendent, New York State Insurance Department, of New York, NY

• Statement of The Honorable Kevin M. McCarty (PDF, 18 pages), Commissioner of Insurance, State of Florida, of Tallahassee, FL

• Statement of The Honorable Mike Kreidler (PDF, 9 pages), Commissioner, Office of the Insurance Commissioner, State of Washington, of Olympia, WA

Panel III:

• Statement of Mr. Thomas M. “Buck” Stinson (PDF, 13 pages), President, Genworth Long Term Care, of Richmond, VA

• Statement of Mr. John Wells (PDF, 11 pages), Senior Vice President, Long Term Care, Conseco, Inc., of Chicago, IL

• Statement of Mr. Thomas E. Samoluk (PDF, 19 pages), Vice President & Counsel, Government Affairs, John Hancock Insurance Co., of Boston, MA

• Statement of Mr. Cameron B. Waite (PDF, 10 pages), Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, Penn Treaty Network America, of Allentown, PA

You can watch the hearing on your computer using Windows Media Player and a high-speed Internet connection.

Seven elected senators or representatives had requested such a Report from the GAO and urged hearings about LTCI. Some were quoted in the Press Release as expressing deep concern about LTCI after reviewing the GAO's Report.

Such investigations are not ended. At the conclusion of the GAO's Report, the principal author, John E. Dicken Director, Health Care, made an offer for further input about it.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

That is an invitation for participation in this envisioning process.

Will Contest from Bethlehem, PA

"Prominent Pa. Attorney Among 3 Killed in Plane Crash" -- this was the headline in an Associated Press article that appeared on February 3, 2007, as posted online by ABC-6 TV, reporting a fatal aviation accident in New Bedford, Massachusetts on the evening of February 2, 2007.

A prominent Pennsylvania attorney and his wife were among three killed when a small plane crashed in bad weather near the New Bedford Regional Airport.

Peter J. Karoly, 53, of Bethlehem and his wife, Dr. Lauren Angstadt, 54, died along with their pilot, according to Karoly's brother, lawyer John Karoly of Allentown, Pa.

Peter Karoly was a prominent plaintiff's lawyer in Allentown who was also known as an owner of the Allentown Ambassadors, a now-defunct minor-league baseball team. Angstadt was an Allentown endodontist -- a specialist in root canal treatment. The couple had no children. * * *

The plane left the Lehigh Valley at about 2 p.m. Friday, flew into Boston, and departed Logan Airport at 7:17 p.m. for New Bedford, where the three planned to have dinner with a business associate. The crash was about 7:44 p.m., John Karoly said.

The death of Peter Karoly has resulted in one of the more notable "will contests" in Pennsylvania.

It began with the filing of a "caveat" with the Register of Wills of Northampton County, PA.

In an article entitled "Family clash ties up Karoly estate", by Joe McDonald published February 22, 2007, the The Morning Call reported that a family dispute over Peter Karoly's last will had tied up the administration of the Estate of Peter J. Karoly.

Through an Easton law firm, two of Karoly's three sisters filed an objection Monday in Northampton County Court, but what they're contesting could not be determined.

The document, known as a caveat, is not public, said Register of Wills Dorothy Cole. Nor are the wills of Karoly and his wife, dentist Lauren B. Angstadt, she said.

''We have two wills for each estate,'' Cole said. ''They have been presented to our office, but they have not been put on record.''

On Wednesday, The Morning Call filed a request for all of the wills and court filings under the Pennsylvania open records law. * * *

That article further reported court involvement in another aspect of the administration of assets in Peter Karoly's Estate:

Karoly's law practice in Allentown, Peter J. Karoly & Associates, has been the subject of two recent court proceedings in Easton. That's because the Karolys lived in the Northampton County portion of Bethlehem.

On Feb. 23, county Senior Judge James C. Hogan expressed confusion about what constituted the practice and referred to a will. The practice ''may encompass a number of things apparently undefined in the will and undefined in general,'' he said, according to a transcript.

Then on March 15, Karoly's brother and at least a half-dozen other lawyers attended a proceeding before Hogan on who would run Peter Karoly's firm.

According to a later article entitled "Half brother calls 2006 Karoly will a fraud", published March 22, 2007, in The Morning Call, there were two last wills offered for probate to the Northampton County Register of Wills.

FIRST WILL: Written in 1985, it evenly divides the estate of Peter Karoly and his wife, Lauren Angstadt, among members of both families. Karoly's law firm is liquidated, with the proceeds going to the estate for distribution.
SECOND WILL: Written in 2006, it assigns Peter Karoly's law firm and several real estate holdings to brother John Karoly. The remainder of the estate is divided among nieces and nephews.
Source: Attorney involved in settlement of the estate of Peter Karoly and Lauren Angstadt.

That article noted the difference in the dispositions.

An attorney involved in the dispute, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the 2006 will leaves Peter Karoly's law practice and real estate holdings to John Karoly.

A 1985 will, the attorney said, liquidates the Allentown law practice and evenly splits the residual estate between the surviving family members of Peter Karoly and Lauren Angstadt.

That article also reported another development: On March 17, 2007, a half-brother of the decedent had made a report to the Bethlehem police suggesting criminal behavior in the execution of a last will.

A new will that leaves a sizable portion of Peter J. Karoly's estate to brother John P. Karoly Jr. is fraudulent, a half brother of the lawyers said in a complaint filed with Bethlehem police.

But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, who reviewed the complaint, said Wednesday it doesn't warrant a criminal investigation, leaving the matter up to a probate judge to sort out.

Michael J. Karoly, 21, a college student who lives in Sommerville, S.C., alleged numerous ''discrepancies'' in the new will, Morganelli said, including a forgery of Peter Karoly's signature.

''Based on information supplied by the Bethlehem police, I cannot find any basis to open a criminal investigation,'' Morganelli said. ''You can't just start a criminal investigation because someone believes a will is improper.''

Bethlehem Deputy Police Commissioner Stuart Bedics said there was no evidence of a crime. ''It appears to be a civil matter,'' he said.

These newspaper articles have spawned nearly a hundred public comments made online. You can read them here (39 comments as of 04/09/07) and here (58 comments as of 04/09/07), both as reposted by Topix.Net in its forums.

Some comments are poignant, some irritating, and some downright disgusting. Here's a sampling containing generalized observations:

• "On Wednesday, The Morning Call filed a request for all of the wills and court filings under the Pennsylvania open records law." -- That's nice. Not even our personal and PRIVATE wills are immune from the local MCall tabloid.
• It never ceases to amaze me. Someone dies that has the slightest amount of money and family members come out of the woodwork to fight over it.
• One thing's for sure. Some lawyers are going to make a lot of money from this....and I'm not talking about the ones related to the deceased.
• [T]he delays and extensions continue to drag this case out. Will it ever be heard?
• I just wish a lot of people would UPDATE their wills and put me in them.
• I say get rid of these "paper" Wills and start videotaping every Will from now on! That way there are no discrepancy! It will be done "live" and in color, and you state "who" gets what!
• Give you stuff away when you're alive and then people will thank you for it.

Already the Peter Karoly Estate proceedings have confirmed what every high-profile will contest reinforces: Document your estate planning well with a qualified attorney to avoid unpredictability, expense, & publicity.

Update: 05/22/07:

For significant & surprising developments in this case, see PA EE&F Law Blog posting Trusts & Estates ... and the FBI: Pt. I (05/21/07).

Update: 09/26/08:

In the Karoly case, on September 25, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced issuance of federal criminal indictments against three defendants. See: PA EE&F Law Blog posting Attorney in PA Indicted for Will Fraud (09/26/08).

Update: 04/07/13:

The Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County issued a ruling that the contestants to the wills did not meet the required burden of proof to overturn the questioned wills. No federal charges were pursued by the Justice Department on such matters. See: PA EE&F Law Blog posting Karoly Estates Will Forgery Case Ruling (04/07/13).

Medicaid Fraud in Employment

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office recently initiated a criminal prosecution through its Medicaid Fraud Control Section charging Medicaid fraud in an employment setting.

Medicaid fraud is a crime under Section 17 of the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-142), which authorized & funded states' Medicaid Fraud Control Units to investigate and prosecute provider fraud in the Medicaid program. The PA AG's Office formed its Medicaid Fraud Control Section (MFCS) in 1978.

The PA AG's Office issued a press release about its Medicaid fraud prosecution based on employment, entitled "Attorney General Corbett announces Medicaid Fraud and theft charges against York County woman accused of falsifying education credentials for mental health job":

Attorney General Tom Corbett today announced that agents from the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Section have filed criminal charges against a York County woman who was paid more than $35,000 for mental health services based on falsified information about her education and academic credentials. * * *

According to the criminal charges, MacBeth falsely claimed to have earned a Master's Degree when applying for work as a Behavioral Specialist Consultant and Mobile Therapist for two York County health care organizations. Both of those positions involve working with children who have mental health or behavioral problems and require a Master's Degree as a minimum qualification, according to the PA Department of Public Welfare. * * *

According to the criminal charges, the false educational background MacBeth provided to NHS and PCBHS caused those two agencies to pay MacBeth $35,547 for services she was not qualified to provide. Additionally, MacBeth's actions caused those two agencies to submit fraudulent claims to the PA Medicaid program totaling $49,269. Macbeth is charged with two counts of Medicaid fraud and two counts of theft by deception (creating a false impression). Each count is a third degree felony, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years in prison and a $15,000 fine.

The PA AG's website addresses its investigations into Medicaid fraud, as follows:

The main focus of Medicaid Fraud investigations concerns providers which are usually physicians, dentists, mental health clinics, drug and alcohol clinics, hospitals and health maintenance organizations. Recipient fraud is generally left to local district attorneys to prosecute.

The usual methods of Medicaid fraud are summarized in an article entitled "Investigating Health Care Fraud Within the Medicaid Program":

• Billing for Services Not Rendered
• Misrepresentation of Services
• False Cost Reports
• Kickbacks
• Unbundling Supplies and/or Services
• Medically Unnecessary Services and Substandard Care
• Drug Diversion

Consistent with these usual forms of fraudulent activity, the MCFS prosecuted Medicaid fraud in 2005-06 by targeting physicians, pharmaceutical companies, and pharmacists, among others, as indicated by that Office's press releases:

• Attorney General Corbett announces criminal charges against Monroe Co. chiropractor as part of illegal prescription drug probe in Luzerne Co.
• Attorney General Corbett announces $124 million multi-state settlement with pharmaceutical company; PA to receive more than $2 million
• AG Corbett, DA Lupas announce arrest of a Luzerne County doctor for illegally prescribing drugs
• AG Corbett announces arrest of Mercer County pharmacist on Medicaid Fraud charges
• AG Corbett, Erie County DA Foulk announce charges against Erie County doctor for illegally prescribing drugs

However, this recent prosecution demonstrates that Medicaid fraud laws also can be violated by persons making false statements or fraudulent pretenses in their rendering of medical or care services in an employment relationship funded under the Medicaid program. If a person is convicted, the financial and imprisonment penalties are significant.

A list of the four offices (Harrisburg, Lemoyne, Norristown, & North Huntingdon) of the MCFS, with contact information, is found online here. The AG's Office offers a pamphlet about Medicaid fraud here.

As with any prosecutions brought by the PA AG's Office, we are reminded that "a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty."