MDEQ Issues Permit Change to Further Limit CAFO Winter Manure Spreading

Paul F. Bohn, Esq.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) announced a change to its permits for large farms as part of the state’s efforts to better protect Michigan waters from agricultural runoff. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) were already limited in when and where they could spread manure, but the permit change applies those limits to operations receiving that manure as well.

We have written previously on Ohio’s efforts to combat the “harmful algae blooms” plaguing Lake Erie, and this effort by MDEQ is certainly part of Michigan’s response to protect Lake Erie.

CAFOs are not allowed to spread manure on frozen or snow-covered grounds except under very strict, limited circumstances, but they were previously allowed to transfer their excess manure to other operations not specifically prohibited from “winter spreading.”

Now, large farms are not permitted to transfer their farm waste to other operations from January through March unless the recipient follows the winter spreading standards. Witnesses at the hearings on the CAFO permit renewal said that the transferred manure, which was spread onto the recipients’ lands, was running into streams and drains as the snow was melting during the spring thaw. 

“The change is expected to further minimize incidents of farm runoff to surface waters during spring melts, and will safeguard Michigan's valuable water resources while providing a reasonable regulatory framework for farmers," said MDEQ in a press release.

This permit change has been in the works since December of last year, and a public hearing was held in January. The final product includes revisions based on public comment. Both the permit and the summary on public comments can be viewed on MDEQ’s website here:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3713-96774--,00.html

Paul Bohn, partner at Fausone Bohn, LLP, has established a strong reputation in Michigan as a leading practitioner in environmental law. Mr. Bohn has been selected as a Michigan Super Lawyer since 2010 and was named one of the Top Attorneys in Michigan in 2014 by Crain’s Detroit Business. The team at Fausone Bohn, LLP has extensive experience dealing with MDEQ matters. If you need consultation, don’t hesitate to contact us at (248) 468-4536 or online at www.fb-firm.com. 

VFW, DAV File Joint Lawsuit Against the VA

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) filed a join lawsuit on May 6 against the VA to force it to change its submission procedure for new claims. The procedure, says the VFW, was created solely to benefit the VA and not veterans.

The primary issue is that the VA eliminated the informal claims process, according to William Bradshaw, VFW’s director of National Veterans Service. Previously, any form of written communication would have served notice on the VA that within one year the veteran would be filing a claim for disability compensation.

In March, the procedure changed to require all veterans to use standardized forms, which complicates the process for veterans, many of whom don’t have access to computers to get the forms. Therefore, this delay essentially postpones the effective date and denies compensation to veterans.

“The VFW doesn’t oppose the use of standardized forms,” said Bradshaw. “Our opposition is to this all or nothing approach that VA is forcing on veterans — changes, that if left in place, will guarantee in this year alone that tens of thousands of service-connected wounded, ill and injured veterans will be denied benefits they were entitled to before the change became effective.”

This change in procedure has been in the VA pipeline since October 2013, at which time the VFW and DAV fought against the proposed change. Now, with it in effect, the two organizations have teamed up again, this time to file a joint lawsuit against the VA.

There appears to be no reason given as to why the VA couldn’t accept both informal claims and the standardized forms. The lawsuit alleges that the elimination of informal claims unduly harms veterans and reduces veterans benefits, which is unlawful as it goes against the “non-adversarial, pro-veteran principles upon which the veterans benefits system is built.”  

You can read the full lawsuit complaint here:

http://www.vfw.org/uploadedFiles/VFWorg/News_and_Events/Articles/2015_Articles/VFWPetitionforReview2015.pdf

At Legal Help For Veterans, PLLC, we focus exclusively on veterans’ rights. If you are a veteran looking to get the benefits that you deserve, call us today at 1-800-693-4800. We handle a variety of claims for service-connected injuries. www.LegalHelpForVeterans.com

Flint Mayoral Candidates Miss the Deadline, "Giggles the Pig" Launches Write-in

We’ve all heard the saying "When pigs fly!" – but what about when pigs run for office? The candidates in Flint’s mayoral race all missed the filing deadline, which has resulted in an all write-in candidate field, including a “Giggles the Pig.” Moral of the story: if you’re thinking about running for office, make sure you know the state laws and deadlines around filing and campaign finance procedure.

Read more on this story on Michigan Radio’s website:

http://michiganradio.org/post/pet-pig-latest-candidate-flints-bizarre-mayors-race

Law Enforcement & the Veteran Population: Safe & Effective Interaction

As City Prosecutors and Municipal Attorneys who also work with Veterans, we highly recommend attending this event if you are a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or court personnel in SE Michigan. Check out this flyer for more details on this FREE event that promotes safe and effective interaction between law enforcement, court personnel, and our veteran population - May 12 & 13, 9 am - 1 pm with lunch included!

Bernstein Dissents from Supreme Court’s Ruling to Overturn Appeals Court’s Decision on a City Park Commission, Governmental Immunity

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, held that the Court of Appeals was wrong to rule on whether a park commission was a governmental entity. In one of his first written opinions, Justice Richard Bernstein dissented.

Case: Nash v. Duncan Park Commission. You can read the 2 page Order and Justice Bernstein’s dissent here: Click Here.

The case involved the death of Diane Nash’s son while he was sledding in Duncan Park. The park land was donated to the city, but how the board functioned related to whether it could claim governmental immunity. The trial court held the city could not be sued.

The Court of Appeals had ruled that the Duncan Park Commission was, in fact, not a “board” of the City of Grand Haven, and therefore was not entitled to claim governmental immunity in tort liability.

The Michigan Supreme Court rejected that ruling, as the majority stated the issue of whether the commission was a governmental entity was not raised and therefore the Court of Appeals should not have reached such a decision on its own.

However, Justice Bernstein would have left intact the Court of Appeals ruling in order to emphasize that simply designating a commission as a “board” does not transform a private entity into a “political subdivision” of a governmental entity. Justice Bernstein stated, “[G]overnmental immunity should not be so readily accessible to an entity operating without governmental oversight in a manner similar to a private entity.”

And, the Court of Appeals and Justice Bernstein agreed, the Duncan Park Commission operated independently and autonomously from the City of Grand Haven as a private body that administers privately held land. The majority on the Supreme Court simply held that the Court of Appeals should not have reached such a conclusion on its own, without the issue being raised previously.

Fausone Bohn, LLP represents municipalities in Western Wayne County and has experience handling issues of governmental immunity and “political subdivisions” of a city. If you need counsel or advice on municipal law issues, the team at Fausone Bohn, LLP is here to help. Contact us today at (248) 468-4536 or online at www.fb-firm.com. 

Could Same Sex Marriage Case Affect Same Sex Adoptions in Michigan?

Melissa Cox, Esq.

A Michigan same-sex couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, have been at the center of the recent news coverage on the upcoming United States Supreme Court case on same sex marriage. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case last week.

DeBoer and Rowse are both nurses who have each separately adopted two children. The Michigan Adoption Code allows individuals or married couples to adopt but not two unmarried persons.  Effectively, the law does not permit same-sex couples to jointly adopt.

The couple originally did not expect to be leading the way on marriage equality. However, after a health scare with one of their sons and a near-miss on what could have been a deadly car accident, they started to look more closely into the state’s laws. The couple discovered that if one of them died, a judge could give the children to someone other than their partner.

That led to their challenge of Michigan’s marriage law.

An estimated 110,000 thousand children across the country live with gay parents. If the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage prohibitions, then states like Michigan that currently ban same-sex marriage would almost certainly see an increase in adoptions by same sex spouses.

If such couples are allowed to legally marry after the Supreme Court’s decision, then, DeBoer and Rowse, for example, could jointly adopt their four children together through a stepparent adoption, whereby a child can be adopted by their legal parent’s spouse.

However, other types of adoption may not increase so easily, as efforts are already underway in Michigan and other states that would may preempt the Supreme Court’s impending decision on gay marriage. In particular, legislation was recently introduced that would allow an adoption agency to select who they service based on “sincerely held religious beliefs contained in a written policy” (of the adoption agency).

Thus, whatever the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage, it appears the debate over same-sex adoption will continue in the coming years.

If you have any questions about adoptions in Michigan or questions about the Michigan Adoption Code, don’t hesitate to contact Attorney Melissa Cox. The adoption process can be complex, and at Fausone Bohn, LLP we serve as strong client advocates. Contact our Metro Detroit Office today at 248-468-4536 or visit us online at www.fb-firm.com.

You can read more on the upcoming Supreme Court case here: http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/401007033/meet-the-accidental-activists-of-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-case

Nursing Homes Requiring Families to Sign Arbitration Agreements Before Admittance

Daniel J. Williams, Esq.

Recent news out of Oklahoma shows why having competent legal representation is important if you are looking for a nursing home for a loved one. And, importantly, having such representation before making the choice of which nursing home to go with.

Many of Oklahoma’s 300-plus nursing homes require potential residents to sign arbitration agreements prior to their being admitted to the nursing home. The arbitration agreement means that the family would be bound to arbitration if a disagreement over care arose, which would effectively strip the family’s ability to sue in court. And the damages awarded in arbitration would probably be less than if a civil suit in court were filed.

Arbitration is an alternative form of dispute resolution that takes place outside the courts. While this method has its uses, it can limit the rights of victims of elder abuse.  

Other downsides of arbitration in the case of potential nursing home abuse include: enforcing an award to be paid can be more complicated, the proceedings can be made confidential, which allows the nursing home to potentially cover up their wrongdoings, and there are limited avenues for appealing a bad decision, among other negatives.

If you are considering putting a loved-one in a nursing home, you should contact a knowledgeable elder abuse or elder law attorney to review any agreements the nursing home might have you sign prior to admittance. Planning ahead of time can help prevent possibly tragic situations of elder abuse; and, you can ensure that if anything does go wrong, you will have legal recourse to seek justice and compensation.

Even if the state prohibits such arbitration agreements, as they do in Oklahoma, nursing homes could argue that such agreements are permissible under federal law. That is the argument the Oklahoma nursing homes have made.

You can read more on this issue in The Norman Transcript:

http://www.normantranscript.com/news/oklahoma/many-nursing-homes-require-families-to-sign-arbitration-agreements-before/article_09d84ebf-21c4-5b42-8f63-a3bc64d70437.html

Daniel J. Williams is an Elder Abuse Attorney with Fausone Bohn, LLP. The firm has former prosecutors and experienced attorneys who can help you and your family right the wrongs done to your loved one, whether it be nursing home abuse or financial exploitation. Call the Metro Detroit Elder Abuse attorneys today, at (248) 468-4536, or visit us
online at www.fb-firm.com.