In Freeman v. Shinseki, No. 10-1462 (U.S. Ct. App. Vet. Claims April 26, 2011), 2011 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 906, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims handed a partial victory to a veteran attempting to challenge the VA’s appointment of a third-party fiduciary, instead of petitioner’s sister, to control his finances. The action was brought as an application seeking a writ of mandamus, in which the petitioner asked that the Court compel the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to accept the Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”) he had filed following the VA’s appointment of a federal third-party fiduciary, instead of the petitioner’s own sister, to manage the petitioner’s VA benefits.
In Freeman, the petitioner had been granted service connection and awarded a 100% disability rating, in addition to entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance. He was also found to be incompetent to handle the resulting disbursement of VA funds. The VARO sent petitioner a letter advising that it had appointed a paid fiduciary to control his VA benefits.
The petitioner filed an NOD with the appointment of the paid fiduciary. In response, the VARO notified the petitioner that he could not file an NOD regarding the selection of a fiduciary. When subsequent correspondence proved futile, the petitioner filed the writ of mandamus.
The petitioner contended that the Court had jurisdiction over the matter because the Secretary’s fiduciary appointment was subject to review by the Board, and then by the Court, as a matter that “affects the provision of benefits” under 38 U.S.C. §511(a). The Court agreed, concluding that “a beneficiary may challenge whether or not the Secretary properly exercised his authority in this area. Such a beneficiary would be entitled to one review on appeal within VA and, subsequently, an appeal to this Court.”
Consequently, the Court ordered the Secretary to issue a Statement of the Case, based upon the petitioner’s NOD and, upon perfection of the petitioner’s appeal, to certify the petitioner’s appeal to the Board.
While the Court did not make a ruling regarding the merits of petitioner’s appeal, it did provide insightful analysis of the issue. The Court found that 38 U.S.C. §5507 “acknowledges that a showing must be made that certification of a certain individual to handle the beneficiary’s funds is ‘in the interest’ of the beneficiary,” and that “there is also an expedited process or a preference for certain individuals with a close relationship to the beneficiary.” According to the regulations,
in the absence of special circumstances, the person or legal entity to be appointed legal custodian will be the person or legal entity caring for and/or having custody of the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s estate.
38 C.F.R. §13.58(a). The Court noted that the Secretary’s adjudication manual, M21-1MR, contains “a specific statement that paid fiduciaries should only be appointed when there is no qualified fiduciary willing to serve without compensation.” The Court also noted that, in the instant case, the petitioner had been cared for by his father and sister for most of the last thirty years, and that the fiduciary appointed by the secretary would be paid a 3% commission out of the petitioner’s benefits.
The Freeman case is annexed here – Freeman v. Shinseki
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media