Author: JGL Law

GREENBELT, Md., Aug. 7, 2020  — The Montgomery County Health Officer today rescinded his order prohibiting religious and private schools from conducting in-person classes.  The order was the only one of its kind in the country. Plaintiffs were represented in this case by Timothy F. Maloney and Alyse Prawde of Joseph, Greenwald and Laake, P.A.

The Health officer’s order was the subject of an emergency injunction hearing in Federal Court scheduled for Friday, August 14, 2020. Counsel will be reviewing the Health Officer’s new order before decisions are made about the status of the hearing and the Federal lawsuit.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan had issued a revised emergency order on Monday concerning clarifying local authority concerning religious and private schools.  In issuing the order, Governor Hogan stated that religious and private schools should be free to make their own to make their own reopening decisions, consistent with CDC and State Health guidelines. Maryland Secretary of Health Robert Neall directed all county health officers to follow the governor’s order as established State health policy.

“Wisdom is always welcome, no matter how late it arrives,” said Timothy F. Maloney, counsel for the plaintiffs who challenged the Health Officer’s order. “This is a victory for the more than 22,000 students in Montgomery County and their families who are committed to their religious and private education.  Their schools are now prepared to make safe reopening decisions based upon CDC and State guidelines.”

Timothy F. Maloney

Attorney at Law

Office in Greenbelt, MD

Direct Dial: (240) 553-1107

Direct Fax: (240) 553-1737 

Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com

GREENBELT, Md., Aug. 5, 2020 — The United States District Court for the District of Maryland has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing next week on Friday, August 14, 2020 at 10 a.m.  At the hearing, the Court will consider plaintiffs’, represented by Joseph Greenwald & Laake, request to enjoin the Montgomery County Health Officer’s order prohibiting classroom instruction at religious and private schools in Montgomery County.  

The hearing will be held before Federal Judge George J. Hazel.  An announcement will be made later concerning the logistics of the hearing to ensure safe public access.  The hearing has become necessary because the Montgomery County Health Officer has so far failed to comply with Governor Hogan’s revised emergency order, which removes any potential legal authority for the Health Officer’s blanket closure order.

The Health Officer’s order is the only one of its kind in Maryland – or the country – which targets religious and private school classroom instruction for closure.  The Health Officer issued this order while allowing restaurants, bars, day care facilities, colleges to remain open.  There have been no Covid-19 reported cases in Montgomery County religious and private schools.

The Health Officer has continued to assert that he has authority independent of the Governor to issue a blanket order shutting down classroom instruction in all religious and private schools.  The Health Officer now has State-retained private counsel who has asserted that the Health Officer has independent authority for his order.¹ At a press briefing today at 12:30 p.m. with the County Executive, the Health Officer stated that “as it stands today, the order has not been rescinded.” 

The Health Officer issued an order on Friday, July 31 at 7:58 p.m. prohibiting all religious and private schools in Montgomery County from conducting in-person classroom instruction until October 1, 2020.  The order was effective Monday morning, August 3, 2020 at 6:00 a.m.  The order included criminal penalties for violation of the order, including fines and incarceration.  The Health Officer had made no meaningful review of private schools’ detailed safe reopening plans before issuing his order.

In issuing his order, the Health Officer premised his authority on Governor Hogan’s emergency executive order that had been issued on Wednesday, July 29, 2020, which gave political subdivisions the authority to issue more stringent restrictions “requiring any businesses, organizations, establishments, or facilities to close and/or modify their operations” than the State requirements.

Since the pandemic began, Governor Hogan’s emergency executive orders have not applied to schools. Instead, school reopenings have been subject to detailed guidelines issued by the State Superintendent of Schools, Karen B. Salmon. In the Maryland School Reopening Plan, she advised religious and private schools that they should make their own determinations as to how and when to reopen, consistent with CDC and State guidelines.

On Monday, August 3, 2020, Governor Hogan issued a revised emergency executive order in response to the Health Officer’s order.  The revised order exempted schools from the new authority given to political subdivisions in his Wednesday order.  Governor Hogan made it clear that the Health Officer’s order was “inconsistent with the power intended to be delegated” to the County:

Private and parochial schools deserve the same opportunity and flexibility to make reopening decisions based on public health guidelines. The blanket closure mandate imposed by Montgomery County was overly broad and inconsistent with the powers intended to be delegated to the Health officer. 

When he learned about the Governor’s Monday order at a press conference, the Health Officer was publicly dismissive. He stated that, “It doesn’t matter if we see the tweet.  It doesn’t matter if we see the statement.”  Despite Governor Hogan’s clear and unequivocal statement and order, the Health Officer has refused to rescind his unlawful order.

On Friday, the Health Officer expressly premised his emergency order on the Governor’s July 29 executive order.  The Health Officer is a State employee.  He is jointly appointed by the State.  He is paid by the State.  He is required by State law to carry out State health policy.  Since the Governor clarified his executive order on Monday, the Health Officer has been openly insubordinate.  He has defied clearly articulated State health policy.

Governor Hogan has made it explicitly clear that State policy does not permit blanket closures of religious and private schools and that each school can make its own reopening decisions “as long as schools develop safe and detailed plans that follow CDC and state guidelines.”  The Maryland State Department of Education’s “Recovery Plan for Maryland Education” makes it clear that each private school has the right to make its own reopening decisions consistent with CDC and State Department of Education guidelines.

The Health Officer’s continued refusal to comply with the law and the Governor’s order is creating continued chaos and confusion for thousands of Montgomery County families and the schools they have chosen.  As schools are ready to reopen, the Health Officer’s continued failure to rescind his illegal order exacerbates the confusion he created Friday night.  This uncertainty has been created because the Governor has issued a clear directive but the Health Officer has refused to comply.

The Health Officer must act immediately to unequivocally and irrevocably rescind his unlawful order. The failure of the Health Officer, a State employee, to follow clearly established State policy and the explicit directive of the Governor, constitutes insubordination.  He should not continue in office if he cannot comply with the Governor’s clear directive and the State’s established health policy.

The rule of law is important. If the Health Officer cannot follow the law and the clear directive of the Governor, plaintiffs will seek an order from the Federal court enforcing the law.

Statement of Counsel for Plaintiffs

Beahn, et al. v. Gayles, et al.

¹ Because the County Health Officer is a State employee, actions against a county health pfficer are usually defended by the Office of the Maryland Attorney General. In this case, the Maryland Attorney General has determined that private counsel to represent the Health Officer.

Timothy F. Maloney

Attorney at Law

Office in Greenbelt, MD

Direct Dial: (240) 553-1107 Direct Fax: (240) 553-1737 

Email: tmaloney@jgllaw.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Timothy Maloney; TMaloney@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

          JGL Represents Two Black Women Who Were Mistreated by Secret Service Last Week, Calls for Immediate Investigation

GREENBELT, MD. August 3 2020 — — Joseph Greenwald & Laake has called upon the U.S. Secret Service to investigate an incident last Thursday evening, July 30, in which uniformed Secret Service officers deliberately rammed their cruiser into a car near the National Mall in Washington, DC, and then aimed a rifle at two young Black mothers who were in the car.

A letter sent by Joseph Greenwald principal Timothy F. Maloney on August 1 to James M. Murray, director of the Secret Service, asks Murray to explain why a Secret Service agent deliberately rammed the cruiser into the women’s car, why agents pointed a rifle at the women, why they handcuffed the women, and why they separated the women from their crying babies for at least 45 minutes.

No charges were ever filed against the mothers, Yasmeen Winston and India Johnson, who had simply driven down to the Mall together with their infants on a summer evening to see the fountains and were parked legally on Constitution Avenue, near 17th Street NW, across from the White House. Both are represented by Joseph Greenwald & Laake.

The officers did not inform either woman of her rights, the letter says, and the Secret Service searched the trunk of their car without permission and without legal justification.

“Throughout the entire incident, the demeanor of the uniformed Secret Service officers was arrogant, angry and condescending,” Maloney wrote in his letter. “There were, of course, no apologies or explanations from the officers for their behavior. By contrast, a Park Police officer on the scene appeared genuinely concerned for the welfare of the two women and their babies and was very professional.”

Maloney wrote, “Women who take their babies to the Mall need to know that their vehicles will not be rammed by the Secret Service, that they will not have rifles pointed at them and their babies, and that they will not be handcuffed without suspicion of a crime or legal justification, and that their children will not be placed at risk of harm.”

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 50 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has represented individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Timothy Maloney; TMaloney@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

JGL Files Lawsuit on behalf of Montgomery County parents & schools

GREENBELT, MD. August 4, 2020 — A group of Montgomery County parents and Montgomery County religious schools filed a suit in Greenbelt Federal court this evening seeking an injunction against Montgomery County’s order closing classroom instruction in religious and private schools.

The suit alleges that the County Health Officer lacked the authority to make such a sweeping order, and that County’s this action interfered with the constitutional rights of religious and other private schools.

The suit references that early in the day, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan amended his emergency orders to make it clear that the County cannot rely on the governor’s emergency power to close religious and other private schools. It is unclear whether the County will attempt to enforce its order relying on other legal authority.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Timothy F. Maloney of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

“This County’s order targeting religious and private schools for closure was the only one of its kind in the entire country,” said Timothy Maloney, attorney for the plaintiffs.  “It was plainly unconstitutional. It disrupted the lives of thousands of Montgomery County families.  Now that Governor Hogan has acted decisively, the County should immediately rescind its illegal order.” 

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 50 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has represented individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

On May 18, 2018 JGL attorneys Levi Zaslow, Maritza Carmona and Tim Maloney won nearly $260,000 in damages for their client, Mamoun Ashkar, who faced ethnic discrimination within his community of Riverdale Park in Prince George’s County. The Washington Post, Daily Record, WTOP, and WJLA, among others, have published articles about this case as it has meaningful impact on not just the Prince George’s County town but also for broader communities.

 

Mr. Ashkar, a Palestinian-American, became the owner of Greg’s Towing in January of 2015. Greg’s Towing is the only tow company in the Town of Riverdale Park in Prince George’s County and, for 30 years, it was the exclusive tow service provider for the town and its police department. Once Mr. Ashkar took over Greg’s Towing, he contacted Town representatives, including the police dept., to continue the company’s long standing relationship with the Town.  However, he was denied any business by the Town and town representatives repeatedly made discriminatory statements and used derogatory language about Mr. Ashkar and his business.

Mr. Ashkar “was horrified and shocked that this is happening right here in our own backyard in the 21st century,” Levi S. Zaslow said.  “My parents moved here because it’s supposed to be the land of the free,” Mr. Ashkar said. “It’s made up of a lot of people. We all live together and this is what makes this country up, people from all over . . . It’s a very normal life and I don’t know why they would think otherwise.” 

“Local government cannot discriminate against its citizens and this case is about fairness, justice and equality and this verdict speaks to that,” Mr. Zaslow said.

After the trial court initially set aside the jury’s verdict, Maryland’s appellate court disagreed with the trial court and concluded the jury acted reasonably.  On Thursday, July 30, 2020 the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reinstated the jury’s verdict.  The appellate court observed:

Based on the admitted evidence discussed above, it appears to us that Ashkar established a prima facie case of discrimination that was submitted properly to the jury. Ashkar is a member of a protected class as a Palestinian-American. Ashkar, as Greg’s Towing, was qualified objectively to be the Town’s tow contractor—he had a tow lot in town; he was the owner of the business that had been the exclusive tow provider for Riverdale for 30 years prior to his obtaining ownership of Greg’s Towing; and, Ashkar had been selected to provide towing for other towns and organizations. He was rejected by Riverdale when it contracted with AlleyCat. This decision was made despite Riverdale being aware of Ashkar’s objective qualifications and credentials

The appellate court concluded that the “jury could come to the reasonable conclusion that” the town’s reasons for refusing to associate with Greg’s Towing “was no more than a pretext for denying Ashkar the contract based on race.”

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake, P.A. is proud to continue its longstanding tradition of providing a voice to victims of discrimination, such as Mr. Ashkar

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Timothy Maloney; TMaloney@jgllaw.com

Nicholas Bernard; NBernard@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

VIDEO AND LAWSUIT INCLUDED

JGL Files Lawsuit in Anne Arundel Police Kneeling Case

 

GREENBELT, MD., July 17, 2020 — Joseph Greenwald & Laake has filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Md., on behalf of Daniel Jarrells, an young African-American man who, in February 2019, was forced out of his car at gunpoint and slammed to the ground by Anne Arundel county police officers, including one officer who violently shoved his knee into Mr. Jarrell’s neck and then kneeled on his neck for several minutes, a potentially lethal use of force. (Video here)

Jarrells’ lawsuit, filed on July 16, 2020, names three Anne Arundel County police officers, as well as the county government, as defendants, and seeks compensatory damages for excessive force, assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and violation of his constitutional rights. A copy of the complaint is attached and can also be found online here.

In addition to compensatory damages, the lawsuit asks that Anne Arundel County be ordered to stop its practice of permitting officers to put their knees on the necks of arrestees, to stop police officers from using potentially lethal force on arrested people unless necessary to protect life, and to ban police officers from restraining arrested people in such a way that their airways can be blocked. (Video here)

“The officers’ violent and dangerous actions toward Daniel were not justified by any police or public safety necessity,” the complaint says.  The complaint notes that police had no legitimate reason to pull over Jarrells and that all charges against him were dropped.

The complaint states:  “As Daniel lay on the ground with Detective [Daniel] Reynolds’s knee on his neck, he attempted to shift his weight so that he could lie flat on his stomach instead of partially on his side, due to the discomfort that the restraint was causing. He also called out to his mother, telling her that the Detectives had pulled their guns on him for no reason. When Daniel shifted, Detective Reynolds responded by grabbing Daniel’s head and then slamming his knee into the back of Daniel’s neck. Detective Reynolds’s knee strike on Daniel’s neck was an excessive use of force, intended to inflict punishment and pain and not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose,” the complaint says.

After being arrested, Jarrells was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and, after a police dog found a small quantity of CBD oil with a THC content of less than one-half of one percent in the car, possession of a controlled dangerous substance.  All charges were later dismissed by the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney.

Jarrells is being represented by Timothy F. Maloney and Nicholas Bernard at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Mr. Maloney said, “No citizen should be treated by police officers as Daniel Jarrells was on that day.  Mr. Jarrells is bringing this suit to bring an end to the use of kneeling and other potentially lethal police practices in Anne Arundel County.”

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 50 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has represented  individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

 

COVID Court closures are expected to create a significant backlog of family cases and delays getting to trial and resolution.  This is especially difficult for families whose complex situation calls for Court intervention, but access to the Court has been quite limited.  What options do these families have while they await rescheduled hearing and trial dates & their day in Court?

This series of articles explores options to help stabilize families in crisis through:

·         Parent Coordination

·         Early Neutral Case Evaluation

·         Arbritation 

·         Child Counsel Representation

·         Custody Evaluations

What is a Child Counsel?

Child Counsel attorneys are appointed by the Court to represent children in contested custody cases.  This article focuses on:

·         Best Interest Attorneys

·         Child Advocate Attorneys

A Best Interest Attorney (or BIA) makes an independent assessment of what living arrangement, parenting time schedule (physical custody), and decision-making arrangement (legal custody) is in the child client’s best interests, in addition to making the child’s position part of the record (even if different from the BIA’s position about the child’s best interests).

A Child Advocate Attorney (or CAA) represents a child client who has “considered judgment” (an understanding of the risks and benefits of the child client’s positon and ability to communicate their wishes) in support and pursuit of the child’s position with the same duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and competence owed an adult client.

Child Counsel also includes the Child Privilege Attorney role, which is not addressed here.

What Does Child Counsel Representation Look Like?

Maryland’s Guidelines for Practice of Court-Appointed Lawyers Representing Children in Cases Involving Child Custody or Child Access set for the following duties in which the child’s attorney may engage:

·         Meet with and interview the child, and advise the child of the scope of the representation.

·         Investigate the relative abilities of the parties in their roles as parents or custodians.

·         Visit the child in each home.

·         Conduct individual interviews with parents, other parties, and collateral witnesses.

·         Observe the child’s interactions with each parent and each other party, individually.

·         Review educational, medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, or other records.

·         Interview school personnel, childcare providers, healthcare providers, and mental health professionals involved with the child or family.

·         File and respond to pleadings and motions.

·         Participate in discovery.

·         Participate in settlement negotiations.

·         Participate in the trial, including calling witnesses and presenting evidence and argument, as appropriate.

·         If the child is to meet with the judge or testify, prepare the child, familiarizing the child with the places, people, procedures, and questioning that the child will be exposed to, and seek to minimize any harm to the child from the process.

·         Inform the child in a developmentally appropriate manner when the representation is ending.

A Child Counsel attorney does not testify at trial or file a report with the Court.

How Can Custody Evaluations Help During Court Backlog?

A Child Counsel attorney begins work when appointed (and if paid, when payment received).  Otherwise, their work is not dictated by the Court’s schedule.  Rather, a BIA or CAA can hit the ground running, investigate pressing issues, develop a position (either about the BIA child client’s best interests or promoting the CAA child client’s goals), and pursue that position, including through negotiations and settlement discussions.

While only a court can make a final, binding decision, in contested matters, a Child Counsel attorney can provide live/real time input about the child client, which may help stabilize a chaotic family situation either resulting in settlement or until the family can have its day in court. 

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

The National Institutes of Health has reported on the increased risk of family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic and cautioned domestic violence rates may even increase far after the pandemic dies down. The stay-at-home orders issued in the State of Maryland places many individuals at risk for domestic violence and increases the risk for others who already suffer from regular abuse at home.  Victims of domestic violence are now required to perpetually be within harm’s reach of their abusive partners or family.  With these rates set to increase, it is important to understand the potential causes as well as the avenues of relief available in the courts to help protect victims of domestic violence.

Causes for Domestic Violence During Quarantine

Although there are a number of reasons why domestic violence may occur in the family home, certain circumstances brought about by COVID-19 have undoubtedly contributed to these unfortunate occurrences:

·         Cabin Fever.  Increased feelings of irritability and short-temperedness are very common in situations where people are confined to a small space for an extended period of time. 

·         Excessive Alcohol Consumption.  Alcohol sales have been skyrocketing during the time of quarantine.  People resort to alcohol when under stress and oftentimes become reliant on it to get through life’s daily stresses.  It doesn’t help that drinking is known to lower one’s inhibitions, which can lead to physical violence stemming from trivial arguments.

·         Substance Abuse.  Many individuals resort to abusing prescription and recreational drugs to help pass time.  Individuals with clouded minds oftentimes lash out when their behaviors are called in to question by their spouses.  Moreover, individuals who are experiencing withdrawal can become irritable to the point where even the littlest thing will set them off on in a fit of rage. 

·         Asserting Control.  The already abusive partner in a relationship may use the pandemic as an excuse to be more authoritative than normal.  The abusive partner sets strict rules for quarantine and becomes upset when those rules are broken. 

·         Unemployment.  A record number of U.S. citizens filed for unemployment during COVID-19.  Although the United States Department of Labor has reported a slight decrease in the overall unemployment rate, a striking number of individuals remain unemployed.  The stress of being unemployed coupled with the potential to become severely ill with no recourse has anxiety levels at an all-time high for many unemployed individuals.  This can cause arguments stemming from a sense of hopelessness.  

Unreported Cases

The potential spread of COVID-19 has required people to stay home and avoid contact with others.  As a result, many cases of domestic violence go unreported.  The abused spouse may be fearful of going to the hospital to receive medical treatment in the event they might catch the disease from hospital workers or patients.  Similarly, abuse victims may be reluctant to call the police to come to their homes in order to maintain social distancing.  Moreover, children who suffer from abuse at home are not attending schools.  A significant portion of child abuse cases are reported by teachers who notice bruises or cuts on children at school.

Maryland Courts Are Available for Emergency Petitions

The Maryland Courts generally remain closed to the general public and will for some time.  However, judges are still permitted to hear emergency petitions on issues pertaining to domestic violence as the courts phase back into being fully operational.  Most courts in the State, however, remain severely understaffed and it may be difficult for a victim of domestic violence to get the help they need without legal representation.

Unfortunately, there are strict procedures which must be followed in order to properly petition the court to hear a case on an emergency basis.  Failure to follow this process precisely could result in the case not being heard for several months.  In domestic violence matters, it is critical that the case be heard before a judge as soon as possible in order to minimize and further harm being done to the victim.

Seeking an Experienced Domestic Violence Attorney in Gaithersburg, MD

The capable attorneys of Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA have been assisting clients with domestic violence issues for decades and have extensive experience in litigating emergency petitions in the courts.  If you or a loved one is suffering from domestic violence at home, contact an attorney today to schedule a consultation and discuss your options. Our attorneys are available to assist you or your loved ones in obtaining the legal relief you need to feel safe and secure. 

 

COVID Court closures are expected to create a significant backlog of family cases and delays getting to trial and resolution.  This is especially difficult for families whose complex situation calls for Court intervention, but access to the Court has been quite limited.  What options do these families have while they await rescheduled hearing and trial dates & their day in Court?

This series of articles explores options to help stabilize families in crisis through:

·         Parent Coordination

·         Early Neutral Case Evaluation

·         Arbitration

·         Child Counsel Representation 

·         Custody Evaluations

What is Arbitration?

Arbitration is a decision-making process in which the parties voluntarily substitute a private process and decision-maker (the arbitrator) for the public process and decision-maker (the Court and a Judge). Maryland has a Uniform Arbitration Act, which parties can opt into or out of.  Instead of having a Court dictate the timing and structure of the process and a Judge determine the outcome, the parties can dictate the timing and structure and an arbitrator determine the outcome.

In child custody and parenting arbitrations, the arbitrator’s decision must be reviewed by the court to determine whether the children’s best interests are met by the arbitration decision.

What Does Arbitration Look Like?

It varies, is completely customizable, and may look as much like a court process as the parties opt into.  However structured, an arbitration involves:

·         Each parent or spouse (and their attorneys, if represented and participating) presenting their evidence & arguments

·         Deliberation by the arbitrator

·         The arbitrator rendering a decision (which is also called an award)

How Can Arbitration Help During Court Backlog?

Arbitration is a voluntary process parties can pursue at any time.  It does not depend upon the Court’s calendar.  Because arbitration is subject to court review in child custody and parenting legal matters, it is better suited to temporary and pressing issues that may not rise to the level of any emergency.

For example, willing parents could submit the following types of issues to arbitration if they want to be assured of a process and decision within a certain amount of time:

·         Temporary parenting schedule

·         Withholding of a child by one parent from parenting time with the other parent

·         School selection

·         Pressing legal decisions which a court may not treat as an emergency

While only a court can make a final, binding decision, in contested matters, arbitration is an option for parents seeking temporary stability and forward movement in a chaotic, complex family situation until the family has its day in Court.

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

The global pandemic will have a lasting effect on all ways of life as we know it.  Unfortunately, one of those effects involves our relationships with others.  As we are spending more time at home with our loved ones, it is not uncommon for arguments to arise.  Our attorneys have compiled some tips to help you and your spouse get through these troubling times with minimal interference to your marriage.  Although we are always here to provide counsel, we hope that you might be able to save your marriage before it reaches a breaking point.

Global Increase in Divorce Rates

China recently permitted its residents to venture back out into the world after several months of a lockdown mandate by its government.  Upon the lift of the stay-at-home mandate, divorce filings surged.  Many couples simply could not carry on forward with their marriage after having spent significant time isolated with one another.  The U.S. is predicted to follow suit and divorce filings are likely to increase after stay-at-home orders are relaxed. 

Isolation Increases Petty Arguments

On average, most couples spend at most 6 hours together on any given day.  As a result of stay-at-home orders issued by state governments, these couples are forced to spend the majority of their day with their spouses while confined in a relatively small space.  This leads to arguments over inconsequential issues that do not normally come up on a daily basis.  One spouse may complain about the other not doing the dishes during lunch, not putting items away after using them for work, not providing enough attention throughout the day, the list goes on.  The buildup of these petty arguments can have a snowball effect and have caused many to call into question the sanctity of their marriages.  

Tips on Avoiding an Irreconcilable Breakdown

Divorce may seem like the easy way out of a quarrelsome marriage, but if contested in court, a divorce can be financially and emotionally burdensome on the parties.  Consider the following to help prevent an irreconcilable breakdown during COVID-19:

·         Set Quiet Hours.  Many of us are working from home during these uncertain times.  It may be helpful to establish mutually agreed-upon quiet hours.  This will allow each spouse to buckle down and focus on their work that needs to get done throughout the day and limit any distractions that may lead to arguments.

·         Spousal Distancing.  People need their space, and without it, they can often develop feelings of anxiety as a result of being confined.  If you have enough space in your home, consider setting up a work station in a separate and remote area of your home that is isolated from your spouse.  This will allow you to maintain your focus during your work day and is a place for you to go when you just need to get away to be alone.  

·         Pick Up a Hobby.  A hobby is a great way to pass time while doing something you enjoy.  Dedicating 30 minutes a day to your hobby can promote stress relief and happiness and instill a sense of daily accomplishment.  Make sure to not neglect your spouse in lieu of pursuing your hobby, though.

·         Stay Busy With Household Tasks.  Now is the perfect time to accomplish your home projects that have been put off because you did not have the time.  Paint that spare bedroom.  Fix that shelf in the hallway.  Put up shelves in the garage.  Tend to your garden.  Exercise.

·         Virtual Hangouts.  Reach out to friends and family using online video conferencing platforms like Zoom and Google Hangouts.  Host a game night.  Catching up with friends and loved ones is a great way to spend a few hours in a given week and allows you to interact with others to see how they are spending their time.  

Contacting a Divorce Attorney in Rockville, Maryland during COVID-19

In light of the recent public health concerns brought about by the spread of COVID-19, the attorneys of Joseph, Greenwald, and Laake, P.A. are practicing social distancing.  However, this does not prevent us from providing zealous representation for our clients.  Our attorneys are available via phone, email, and video conference to provide legal consultations for current and potential clients.  If you are experiencing difficulties at home with your spouse and want to discuss your legal options, email us at jgreenblatt@jgllaw.com or give us a call at 240-399-7894.  We are here to help.

COVID Court closures are expected to create a significant backlog of family cases and delays getting to trial and resolution.  This is especially difficult for families whose complex situation calls for Court intervention, but access to the Court has been quite limited.  What options do these families have while they await rescheduled hearing and trial dates & their day in Court?

This series of articles explores options to help stabilize families in crisis through:

·         Parent Coordination

·         Early Neutral Case Evaluation

·         Custody Evaluation

·         Child Counsel Representation (especially Best Interest or Child Advocate Attorney)

·         Custody Evaluations, including Specific Issue Evaluations

What is a Custody Evaluation?

A Custody Evaluation is a “study and analysis of the needs and development of a child…and of the abilities of the parties to care of the child and meet the child’s needs” (Maryland Rule 9-205.3(b)(3)).  A Custody Evaluation looks at the family history, the family’s current functioning, the parents’/participants’ fitness, the child’s needs, and makes recommendations about a parenting time schedule/physical custody and legal decision making/legal custody, as well as any services for the parents or child.

A Custody Evaluation may include psychological testing of the parents or a child.  A Custody Evaluation may be general (as described above) or focus on a specific issue or a parent’s home.

A Specific Issue Evaluation “means a targeted investigation into a specific issue…affective the safety, health, or welfare of the child” (Maryland Rule 9-205.3(b)(7)).  “An example…is an evaluation of a party as to whom the issue of a problem with alcohol consumption has been raised, performed by an individual with expertise in alcoholism” (Committee Note).  This is also referred to as a Brief Focused Assessment (for example, by the AFCC).

A Home Study means “an inspection of a party’s home that focuses upon the safety and suitability of the physical surroundings and living environment for the child” (Maryland Rule 9-205.3(b)(5)).

What Do Custody Evaluations Look Like?

Maryland Rule 9-205.3 sets out the following Mandatory & Optional Elements of a custody evaluation:

·         Mandatory

o   a review of the relevant court records pertaining to the litigation

o   an interview of each party

o   an interview of the child, unless the custody evaluator determines and explains that by reason of age, disability, or lack of maturity, the child lacks capacity to be interviewed

o   a review of any relevant educational, medical, and legal records pertaining to the child

o   if feasible, observations of the child with each party, whenever possible in that party’s household

o   factual findings about the needs of the child and the capacity of each party to meet the child’s needs

o   a custody and visitation recommendation based upon an analysis of the facts found or, if such a recommendation cannot be made, an explanation of why

·         Optional

o   contact with collateral sources of information

o   a review of additional records

o   employment verification

o   an interview of any other individual residing in the household

o   a mental health evaluation

o   consultation with other experts to develop information that is beyond the scope of the evaluator’s practice or area of expertise

o   an investigation into any other relevant information about the child’s needs

 

All evaluations culminate in a report, whether oral on the record and transcribed or written, unless the report requirement is waived for a Specific Issue Evaluation or Home Study. The report contains the evaluator’s findings and recommendations.

How Can Custody Evaluations Help During Court Backlog?

A custody evaluation need not depend upon the court’s timing.  Willing parents could use a Custody Evaluation’s results to help them settle their case in full or make temporary, child-focused changes until their trial.

Specific Issue Evaluations and Home Studies may provide parents targeted information about pressing concerns.  If addressed, this may either resolve the issue or provide a plan for moving the family forward while their case makes its way through the court process.

While only a court can make a final, binding decision, in contested matters, a Custody Evaluation is an option for parents to receive and implement child-focused input and recommendations. 

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Veronica Nannis; vnannis@jgllaw.com

Jay Holland; jholland@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOINS WHISTLEBLOWER CASE

FILED BY JGL AGAINST MAJOR MEDICAL DEVICE COMPANY

Suit alleges scheme to pay for advertising and consulting fees

to physicians to induce exclusive use of company’s medical devices.

 

GREENBELT, MD – June 15, 2020 – The United States joined a lawsuit filed by Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. on behalf of a former Chief Compliance Officer and whistleblower against Utah-based medical device company, Merit Medical Systems, Inc. The False Claims Act (qui tam) complaint alleges fraud schemes involving unlawful kickbacks to physicians to induce their use of Merit’s devices over those of its competitors.    

The whistleblower, (or “Relator”), Dr. Charles Wolf, is a non-practicing medical doctor and an accredited healthcare compliance professional with over 20 years of experience. The complaint recounts how Dr. Wolf reported his concerns about the alleged fraud to Merit’s management during his tenure as its Chief Compliance Officer, all to no avail. Unable to effect change from within, Dr. Wolf resigned from Merit and reported his information to the Department of Justice, which undertook a thorough investigation before deciding to intervene.

The lawsuit was made public on June 12, 2020, after the United States filed its notice of intervention and the Court unsealed the case. The federal government is expected to file its own complaint in intervention by July 13. In addition, 29 states are included in the lawsuit and will have an opportunity to join it also.

The complaint focuses on kickback allegations where Merit provided paid advertising for loyal Merit users and paid consulting fees in order to influence physicians to use Merit devices – which are expected to be included in the federal government’s forthcoming complaint. The lawsuit alleges that Merit “paid for advertising for high-volume users of its medical devices and continues to pay consulting fees to high-use providers for little-to-no-work.” Disguised as educational in nature, the suit claims that, instead, the money paid to physicians was meant to effect and “induce hospitals and physicians to purchase additional equipment, supplies and/or products from Merit.”

Federal and state laws prohibit payments of any kind to physicians – including marketing dollars and consulting fees – to influence physician choice of medical devices. “Prosecuting these cases protects patients. When medical device companies pay something of value to induce physicians to use their devices to the exclusion of others, that can effect independent medical judgment and patient care,” said Veronica Nannis, who, with her partner Jay Holland, represents the whistleblower in this case along with former Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. McInnis of McInnis Law.

Holland touted the four-year investigation performed by Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey. “The government’s intervention here after a careful, detailed and thorough investigation underscores its goal of protecting patients, rooting out fraud and recouping tax dollars,” said Holland.

The case is captioned U.S. ex rel. Wolf v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01855-CCC-MF. The Relator is represented by a team of experienced whistleblower attorneys including Jay Holland and Veronica Nannis of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and Tim McInnis of McInnis Law. The government’s team is led by Chris Terranova, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Andrew A. Caffrey III, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit out of Newark, NJ.

Jay Holland is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald    & Laake, and is Chair of the Firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Departments. His False Claims Act cases have resulted in recoveries of over $600 Million for the United States. His recent publications include articles for The National Law Journal, Trial Magazine, DC Trial Lawyer, and the Maryland State Bar Association Employment Law Deskbook. He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com

Veronica Nannis is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and serves as the Chair of the Firm’s Civil Litigation Department. She litigates qui tam cases and consumer class actions, typically involving kickbacks and other fraud. A Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in DC and Maryland for several years, she was awarded the MAJ Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2011 with the team from Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. Past publications include those for Law 360, the ABA Health e-Source, and The Daily Record. She can be reached at vnannis@jgllaw.com