by Kristina Derro
Veterans Disability Lawyer
The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee heard testimony on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 regarding the historically rocky transition for service members between leaving the Department of Defense (DoD) and beginning to receive medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Researchers found that increasing levels of drug abuse and suicides among recently-separated combat veterans can be partly blamed on inadequate coordination as service members are discharged from the military and become the responsibility of VA.
A lack of coordination was also found to negatively affect the treatment of combat-related injuries. At the DoD, injured service members receive state-of-the-art care, receive counseling services, and are prescribed narcotics to treat pain. When service members are discharged and begin to receive their medical care from VA, research has shown that VA improperly manages their narcotic medications, making them more likely to abuse drugs, become homeless, or commit suicide. Further, due to a rocky handoff, veterans at VA also have physicians who are unfamiliar with the course of treatment that those veterans were receiving while with the DoD.
The area of prosthetics is one example where the lack of coordination and lack of familiarity hurt the veterans. The DoD has outstanding prosthetics for its amputees. Upon arrival at VA, many VA physicians are fascinated by the high-tech devices, having never seen them before, and are more interested in examining the devices rather than examining the veterans.
Both the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs recognized the need for a truly seamless handoff from the DoD to the VA medical facilities. Recognizing the problem is the first step, however it seems that the VA has a history of being unable to rectify the problems even though they have been sufficiently identified.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Experienced and practical Michigan attorneys solving the problems of business owners, their families, and veterans... one case at a time.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Teenage “Love Child:” Why is Paternity Public Now?
by Wendy Alton
There is no question that the hottest news (gossip) topic in the last few days has been centered around the “love child” fathered by Arnold Schwarzenegger with his housekeeper, allegedly Mildred “Patty” Patricia Baena, while he was married to Maria Shriver. The news has been shocking, devastating, and sad, to say the least. Even more shocking that the child is now a teenager, and this entire relationship and child was hidden privately and publicly for over a decade.
Which raises an interesting question. Why has this become public now, since the child is assumed to be about 14 years old? Why not earlier? While I don’t presume to know the laws of paternity in California, a brief overview of paternity law in Michigan may provide some possible answers.
In Michigan, if a child is born while a woman is married, that child is legally presumed to be the biological child of the married parents. No one can challenge this paternity while the couple is married, even if a DNA test proves that the biological father is someone else.
If a woman becomes pregnant when she is unmarried, but then marries someone before the child is born, the child is presumed to be the father of the man she marries. This is true again even if DNA tests prove that the biological father is someone else.
In short, Michigan honors the sanctity of marriage for purposes of paternity. If a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed legally to be the father.
However, if the couple files for divorce, the mother or father can challenge the paternity of any of the children born during the marriage. If this happens, a DNA test is conducted, and if the test proves that the husband is not the father, the divorce judgment can include this information, and that child’s paternity remains an open question. If this happens, once the divorce becomes final, the mother or the assumed true biological father can the file a paternity action to establish paternity of that child.
Simply, if a man knows that he has fathered a child, even if a DNA test is done, he has no standing under Michigan law to establish his paternity if the mother is married to someone else. Additionally, if the mother does divorce, but the divorce judgment indicates that all the children born during the marriage are children of the husband and wife, the biological father still lacks standing. The husband is presumed to be the father (despite DNA), and this issue cannot be challenged once the divorce is finalized.
Turning back to the case of Arnold Schwartzenegger and his housekeeper, it was noted by the press that Patty Baena was married at the time she conceived this “love child.” If that is the case, then Patty Baena’s husband was legally presumed to be the father. However, the press has also stated that she is now divorced. Perhaps the divorce judgment indicates that this “love child” is not a child of that marriage, leaving paternity open. Perhaps Patty Baena is now going to file either a paternity or child support action, seeking financial support for her child. It’s just a guess, but if you analyze the law surrounding paternity issues, it makes sense.
Read the LA Times story that broke the news here: Maria Shriver on Schwarzenegger's paternity admission: 'Painful and heartbreaking.'
Read the Radar Online story that broke the news about the housekeeper’s identity: WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mother Of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Love Child Revealed!
There is no question that the hottest news (gossip) topic in the last few days has been centered around the “love child” fathered by Arnold Schwarzenegger with his housekeeper, allegedly Mildred “Patty” Patricia Baena, while he was married to Maria Shriver. The news has been shocking, devastating, and sad, to say the least. Even more shocking that the child is now a teenager, and this entire relationship and child was hidden privately and publicly for over a decade.
Which raises an interesting question. Why has this become public now, since the child is assumed to be about 14 years old? Why not earlier? While I don’t presume to know the laws of paternity in California, a brief overview of paternity law in Michigan may provide some possible answers.
In Michigan, if a child is born while a woman is married, that child is legally presumed to be the biological child of the married parents. No one can challenge this paternity while the couple is married, even if a DNA test proves that the biological father is someone else.
If a woman becomes pregnant when she is unmarried, but then marries someone before the child is born, the child is presumed to be the father of the man she marries. This is true again even if DNA tests prove that the biological father is someone else.
In short, Michigan honors the sanctity of marriage for purposes of paternity. If a child is born during a marriage, the husband is presumed legally to be the father.
However, if the couple files for divorce, the mother or father can challenge the paternity of any of the children born during the marriage. If this happens, a DNA test is conducted, and if the test proves that the husband is not the father, the divorce judgment can include this information, and that child’s paternity remains an open question. If this happens, once the divorce becomes final, the mother or the assumed true biological father can the file a paternity action to establish paternity of that child.
Simply, if a man knows that he has fathered a child, even if a DNA test is done, he has no standing under Michigan law to establish his paternity if the mother is married to someone else. Additionally, if the mother does divorce, but the divorce judgment indicates that all the children born during the marriage are children of the husband and wife, the biological father still lacks standing. The husband is presumed to be the father (despite DNA), and this issue cannot be challenged once the divorce is finalized.
Turning back to the case of Arnold Schwartzenegger and his housekeeper, it was noted by the press that Patty Baena was married at the time she conceived this “love child.” If that is the case, then Patty Baena’s husband was legally presumed to be the father. However, the press has also stated that she is now divorced. Perhaps the divorce judgment indicates that this “love child” is not a child of that marriage, leaving paternity open. Perhaps Patty Baena is now going to file either a paternity or child support action, seeking financial support for her child. It’s just a guess, but if you analyze the law surrounding paternity issues, it makes sense.
Read the LA Times story that broke the news here: Maria Shriver on Schwarzenegger's paternity admission: 'Painful and heartbreaking.'
Read the Radar Online story that broke the news about the housekeeper’s identity: WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mother Of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Love Child Revealed!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The Epidemic of Military Sexual Trauma
by Kristina Derro
Veterans Disability Attorney
Sixteen men and women who were raped and assaulted during active service filed a recent lawsuit against the Pentagon. The lawsuit accuses the military of condoning a culture that fails to prosecute the offenders of sex crimes and instead punishes the sexual assault victims who come forward to report the incidents.
According to a recent report by the Department of Defense (DOD), last year 3,158 sexual assaults were reported by men and women in the Armed Forces. The DOD estimates that this number reflects only about 13.5% of the total number of assaults on men and women in active duty last year. Experts say that the number of reported sexual assaults in the military is so low because of the fact that victims often receive pressure from supervisors and peers to not report anything. Further, once reports are made, the victims are often viewed as “troublemakers”, the sexual offenders are rarely disciplined by the military, and the victims often get transferred out of his/her military occupational specialty and into a new job—instead of forcing the sexual offender to be relocated. Seeing victims treated in this manner acts as a deterrent in the reporting of sexual assaults by other victims.
Adding to the problem is that while sexual trauma victims are in the military, they are away from family and friends who are the traditional support system in times of stress. Instead, the victims have to rely on receiving their support entirely from the military itself—the same establishment that refuses to acknowledge the problem or punish the offender.
VA health care systems have seen a large influx in military sexual trauma survivors. So much so that several VA medical centers have employed social workers on a full-time basis whose only job is to counsel those victims of military sexual trauma. There is movement afoot in the Armed Services to start training active duty members at an early age, even beginning in boot camp, about how to prevent sexual assault and how to intervene if they see someone being sexually harassed or assaulted. It has been recognized that there needs to be something done to prevent military sexual trauma from happening in the first instance.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Veterans Disability Attorney
Sixteen men and women who were raped and assaulted during active service filed a recent lawsuit against the Pentagon. The lawsuit accuses the military of condoning a culture that fails to prosecute the offenders of sex crimes and instead punishes the sexual assault victims who come forward to report the incidents.
According to a recent report by the Department of Defense (DOD), last year 3,158 sexual assaults were reported by men and women in the Armed Forces. The DOD estimates that this number reflects only about 13.5% of the total number of assaults on men and women in active duty last year. Experts say that the number of reported sexual assaults in the military is so low because of the fact that victims often receive pressure from supervisors and peers to not report anything. Further, once reports are made, the victims are often viewed as “troublemakers”, the sexual offenders are rarely disciplined by the military, and the victims often get transferred out of his/her military occupational specialty and into a new job—instead of forcing the sexual offender to be relocated. Seeing victims treated in this manner acts as a deterrent in the reporting of sexual assaults by other victims.
Adding to the problem is that while sexual trauma victims are in the military, they are away from family and friends who are the traditional support system in times of stress. Instead, the victims have to rely on receiving their support entirely from the military itself—the same establishment that refuses to acknowledge the problem or punish the offender.
VA health care systems have seen a large influx in military sexual trauma survivors. So much so that several VA medical centers have employed social workers on a full-time basis whose only job is to counsel those victims of military sexual trauma. There is movement afoot in the Armed Services to start training active duty members at an early age, even beginning in boot camp, about how to prevent sexual assault and how to intervene if they see someone being sexually harassed or assaulted. It has been recognized that there needs to be something done to prevent military sexual trauma from happening in the first instance.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
10th Circuit Deciding Fake Veteran Case
By Kristina Derro
Veterans Disability Lawyer
Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on a case involving a Colorado man who falsely claimed to be a highly-decorated Marine Corps veteran. He is being tried under the Stolen Valor Act, a piece of legislation passed in 2006 that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals.
The defendant, Rick Strandlof, founded a veteran advocacy group and claimed to be an Iraqi War veteran who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. In reality, Strandlof never even served in the military in any capacity. Fellow advocates exposed his deceit and federal authorities charged Strandlof with violating the Stolen Valor Act.
At his trial in the U.S. District Court, Strandlof did not deny his lies, but instead argued that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional and that his lies are protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The District Judge agreed and dismissed the case against Strandlof, but stated that while the U.S. Constitution does not protect against fraudulent speech, in Strandlof’s case there was no actual victim of the fraud. The District Judge noted that the Stolen Valor Act “criminalizes the mere utterance of the false statement regardless whether anyone is harmed thereby. It is merely fraud in the air, untethered from any underlying crime at all”.
The government appealed, arguing in its brief to the Tenth Circuit that the Stolen Valor Act is narrowly tailored and does not discourage people from making other constitutionally-protected statements. It noted that the Act is aimed at preventing harm to the public from the “misappropriation of the benefits, reputation, and credibility properly accorded to those who have earned military honors”. The attorney for the government noted that “[f]alse statements are not protected speech. They undermine rather than advance the free marketplace of ideas”.
However, the Tenth Circuit judges strongly questioned the Justice Department attorney, wondering where the criminalization of lies stops and pointing out that what the government wants to implement is a broad category of protection against false statements of facts.
This case is proving to be extremely important because last year, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the Act unconstitutional because of the same free-speech concerns. If the Tenth Circuit comes to the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit, then it would become more settled law that the Act is unconstitutional. However, if the Tenth Circuit were to rule differently, it would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would step in to settle the dispute.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Veterans Disability Lawyer
Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments on a case involving a Colorado man who falsely claimed to be a highly-decorated Marine Corps veteran. He is being tried under the Stolen Valor Act, a piece of legislation passed in 2006 that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals.
The defendant, Rick Strandlof, founded a veteran advocacy group and claimed to be an Iraqi War veteran who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. In reality, Strandlof never even served in the military in any capacity. Fellow advocates exposed his deceit and federal authorities charged Strandlof with violating the Stolen Valor Act.
At his trial in the U.S. District Court, Strandlof did not deny his lies, but instead argued that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional and that his lies are protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The District Judge agreed and dismissed the case against Strandlof, but stated that while the U.S. Constitution does not protect against fraudulent speech, in Strandlof’s case there was no actual victim of the fraud. The District Judge noted that the Stolen Valor Act “criminalizes the mere utterance of the false statement regardless whether anyone is harmed thereby. It is merely fraud in the air, untethered from any underlying crime at all”.
The government appealed, arguing in its brief to the Tenth Circuit that the Stolen Valor Act is narrowly tailored and does not discourage people from making other constitutionally-protected statements. It noted that the Act is aimed at preventing harm to the public from the “misappropriation of the benefits, reputation, and credibility properly accorded to those who have earned military honors”. The attorney for the government noted that “[f]alse statements are not protected speech. They undermine rather than advance the free marketplace of ideas”.
However, the Tenth Circuit judges strongly questioned the Justice Department attorney, wondering where the criminalization of lies stops and pointing out that what the government wants to implement is a broad category of protection against false statements of facts.
This case is proving to be extremely important because last year, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the Act unconstitutional because of the same free-speech concerns. If the Tenth Circuit comes to the same conclusion as the Ninth Circuit, then it would become more settled law that the Act is unconstitutional. However, if the Tenth Circuit were to rule differently, it would make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would step in to settle the dispute.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sleep and Combat
by Jim Fausone
Veterans Disability Lawyer
The research continues on veterans and sleep apnea. A study presented in May 2011 at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting suggests that sleep disturbances like obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), excessive awakening and insomnia, may be a normal result of combat experience and not specifically related to PTSD or TBI.
However, the sleep study participants did not have a higher rate of OSA than non-veteran sleep clinic participants, calling into question the commonly held view that sleep apnea and related sleep disorders are a function of PTSD and TBI. Rather, they appear to be a function of experiencing stress under combat conditions, even if that stress does not rise to the level of PTSD.
As we have written before, OSA is an increasingly approved rating by VA. You may find the article on the study of interest.
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Research_270/Sleep_Disruptions_May_Be_a_Function_of_Combat_Not_Specific_to_PTSD_or_Other_Medical_Disorders.shtml
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Veterans Disability Lawyer
The research continues on veterans and sleep apnea. A study presented in May 2011 at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting suggests that sleep disturbances like obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), excessive awakening and insomnia, may be a normal result of combat experience and not specifically related to PTSD or TBI.
However, the sleep study participants did not have a higher rate of OSA than non-veteran sleep clinic participants, calling into question the commonly held view that sleep apnea and related sleep disorders are a function of PTSD and TBI. Rather, they appear to be a function of experiencing stress under combat conditions, even if that stress does not rise to the level of PTSD.
As we have written before, OSA is an increasingly approved rating by VA. You may find the article on the study of interest.
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Research_270/Sleep_Disruptions_May_Be_a_Function_of_Combat_Not_Specific_to_PTSD_or_Other_Medical_Disorders.shtml
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Friday, May 20, 2011
VA Malpractice Data
by Kristina Derro
Veterans Disability Lawyer
Recent data published by the Project on Government Oversight revealed that VA paid out over a dozen million-dollar malpractice payouts because of either failure on the part of VA to obtain informed consent from its patients or VA’s health care providers failing to timely diagnose and treat conditions.
Out of more than 12,000 claims against VA from 1989 to 2008, several thousand were related to medical malpractice. Of those, 16 had payouts of $1 million or more due to clinical negligence.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Veterans Disability Lawyer
Recent data published by the Project on Government Oversight revealed that VA paid out over a dozen million-dollar malpractice payouts because of either failure on the part of VA to obtain informed consent from its patients or VA’s health care providers failing to timely diagnose and treat conditions.
Out of more than 12,000 claims against VA from 1989 to 2008, several thousand were related to medical malpractice. Of those, 16 had payouts of $1 million or more due to clinical negligence.
To learn more or to contact a Veterans disability lawyer, Veterans disability attorney, Veterans lawyer, or Veterans attorney call 1.800.693.4800 or visit Legalhelpforveterans.com
Thursday, May 19, 2011
NLRB Outrageous Decision
by Jim Fausone
Over 30 years of practicing law, I have seen foolish and unexplainable decisions by courts and boards. This one has to be in the top ten.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that Boeing's opening of a plant in right-to-work state South Carolina was prohibited because it was anti-union. The NLRB ruled that Boeing’s decision to locate in the south was retaliation for union strikes in Washington State. Notwithstanding, the facts showed that Boeing had added 2000 jobs in Washington State. The critics claim this decision by the Obama NLRB is pay-back for union support of the administration.
Business decisions are motivated primarily by making a profit for the company. If the government can tell you where you can build your plant in this country, expect those who can move out of the country to do that. Do we want Lansing to tell a business you can only build in Detroit or the UP? This decision is outrageous and should heighten calls for defunding of the NLRB.
http://americansforprosperity.org/042511-south-carolina%E2%80%99s-right-work-boeing-and-nlrb
Over 30 years of practicing law, I have seen foolish and unexplainable decisions by courts and boards. This one has to be in the top ten.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that Boeing's opening of a plant in right-to-work state South Carolina was prohibited because it was anti-union. The NLRB ruled that Boeing’s decision to locate in the south was retaliation for union strikes in Washington State. Notwithstanding, the facts showed that Boeing had added 2000 jobs in Washington State. The critics claim this decision by the Obama NLRB is pay-back for union support of the administration.
Business decisions are motivated primarily by making a profit for the company. If the government can tell you where you can build your plant in this country, expect those who can move out of the country to do that. Do we want Lansing to tell a business you can only build in Detroit or the UP? This decision is outrageous and should heighten calls for defunding of the NLRB.
http://americansforprosperity.org/042511-south-carolina%E2%80%99s-right-work-boeing-and-nlrb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)