Updated October 2021:

Third party custody is one of the fastest developing areas of Maryland law, seeing many major changes since 2016. This series of articles explores these developments and raises questions about where this area of the law is heading.

This series discusses:

Why Does Consent Matter?

Consent is a critical element of De Facto parenthood.  To be a De Facto parent requires the legal parent’s consent to and fostering of the third party’s and child’s parent-child relationship.  Without that consent, one cannot be a De Facto parent.  But, what if there are two biological/adoptive parents and only one consents to the De Facto relationship with a third party?

What are Multi-Parent Families?

A multi-parent family is one in which three (3) or more parents are recognized as legally responsible for the care, custody, and control of a child.

Maryland’s legal approach to multi-parent families has evolved since 2016.  In 2016’s Conover opinion, the Court of Appeals’s majority cautioned against multi-parent families.  Footnote 18 recommended taking into account, when deciding custody, whether others had already been recognized as De Facto parents and cautioned courts to “avoid having a child or family be overburdened or fractured by multiple persons seeking access.”  One of the concurring opinions found this caution odd in light of the unanswered question of unilateral consent.  As discussed in my last blog, the lower appellate Court’s 2018 Kpetigo decision opened the door (but did not definitively resolve) legally recognized multi-parent families and unilateral parental consent (so, consent of only one parent) to formation of a De Facto parent relationship.

Until E.N. v. T.R., 247 Md.App. 234 (2020) and the Court of Appeals’s E.N. v. T.R. (July 2021), which usher in the era of legally recognized multi-parent families and address unilateral parent consent.

E.N. v. T.R.

This case involved a mother, father, and father’s (non-spouse) partner.  Mother’s and father’s children lived primarily with father and father’s partner, and mother informally agreed to this.  During Father’s incarceration, the children continued to live with father’s partner.  Father’s partner and mother disagreed about visitation and custody, so father’s partner filed for custody.  Father submitted a written consent to partner’s custody (though was not a party in the case and did not participate).  At trial, father’s partner was found to be a De Facto parent and granted sole physical custody, with alternate weekend visitation to mother and joint legal custody to partner and mother.

On appeal, the lower appellate Court concluded that one parent can create a De Facto parent through consent and fostering that relationship.  The Court adopted Conover’s dissenting discussion that a De Facto parent relationship could be created when:

  • there are two parents
  • by only one parent’s consent and knowledge
  • without the knowledge and consent of the other parent

The opinion does not speak to establishment of a De Facto parent relationship over the ongoing, explicit objection of the other parent and seems to decline to decide whether implied consent is sufficient.

Additionally and unsurprisingly (though bears remembering), the Court reiterated that once De Facto parent status is conferred on a party, that party and the parents are on equal legal footing, including constitutionally.

This was appealed and addressed by the highest appellate Court in July 2021, giving some clarity and raising still more issues.

Most importantly, E.N. v. T.R. (the second) decided that both parents must consent to the establishment of a De Facto parent-child relationship.  Consent may be express or implied and must be knowing and voluntary.  Implied consent may be shown through action or inaction, for example not objecting to the establishment of the parent-like relationship.

Next E.N. v. T.R. decided that exceptional circumstances or unfitness may be considered about the non-consenting parent.  Worryingly, due to internal inconsistencies in the opinion’s language, the exact legal standard is unclear.  The opinion suggests that unfitness and exceptional circumstances may be a path to De Facto parenthood, when until now they were only paths to third party custody or visitation.  Which makes deciding these cases and advising clients difficult at best.

What’s the Big Deal?

E.N. v. T.R. (the second) raises more questions than it answers.  For example:

  • Is there a limit on the number of legally recognized parents a child can have?
  • How can a parent overcome one-sided consent and prevent third party custodial rights from being established?  Without this reflecting negatively on the non-consenting parent?
  • Once recognized as a legal parent, can legal parenthood be terminated?  How?
  • What about child support?
  • How far can parental constitutional rights be pushed?

All – and more – to be discussed in my final blog about the future of third party custody…  But first, a brief detour to grandparent visitation rights.

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.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedInFacebookInstagramTwitterLindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

On August 26, 2021, a jury in Montgomery County returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs.  The case involved the death of their mother, Yvonne Napoleon, after traumatic removal of a feeding tube at Oakview SNF, LLC in Silver Spring.  The nurse failed to follow orders and apply a protective abdominal binder to keep the feeding tube securely in place and prevent it from being removed.

Ms. Napoleon was 76 years old and had been diagnosed with advanced dementia.  As a result of the nursing home’s negligence, she vomited and aspirated her stomach contents into her lungs and also suffered a hole in her stomach resulting in peritonitis. Oakview refused to take responsibility for the negligence and insisted the vomiting and aspiration was a “natural consequence” of dementia and the hole in her stomach had nothing to do with her illness and death.  The Jury awarded $800,000 to the estate of Yvonne Napoleon and to her sons for pain and suffering, in addition to the medical bills incurred.

If you or your loved ones have suffered negligence as a result of nursing home care, please contact Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA for a free consultation to evaluate your case.

We are delighted to congratulate 15 of our attorneys for being selected by their peers for inclusion in the 28th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America:

Allison Mcfadden

  • Family Law

Andrew E. Greenwald

  • Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
  • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Anne E. Grover

  • Family Law
  • Family Law Arbitration

Burt Kahn

  • Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
  • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

David Bulitt

  • Family Law Mediation
  • Collaborative Law: Family Law
  • Family Law

Debora Fajer-Smith

  • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Jeffrey Hannon

  • Family Law

Jeffrey N. Greenblatt

  • Family Law

Patrick W. Dragga

  • Family Law

Rami Taib-Lopez

  • Family Law

Reza Golesorkhi

  • Family Law

Stephen A. Friedman

  • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Steven M. Pavsner

  • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Timothy Maloney

  • Appellate Practice
  • Employment Law – Management

Timothy P. O’Brien

  • Trusts and Estates

All lawyers named to The Best Lawyers in America© publication were recognized by their peers in the legal industry for their professional excellence in 146 practice areas. For the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, 8.3 million votes were analyzed, which resulted in the inclusion of more than 62,000 lawyers, or approximately 5% of lawyers in private practice in the United States.

The selection of these lawyers in this prestigious peer-reviewed publication continues to demonstrate the quality of the legal services that we provide at JGL and our unswerving dedication to client service.

ROCKVILLE, MD., July 23, 2020 — Joseph Greenwald & Laake P.A. is pleased to announce that Christopher Castellano has been elevated to Senior Counsel.

“We are delighted to promote Chris to this highly responsible position,” said Paul Riekhof, Managing Director. “It is extremely well-deserved, and we look forward to his continued success at JGL.”

Christopher Castellano is a member of the Firm’s Family Law group. His practice covers Pre/Post Nuptial Agreements, Separation Agreements, Divorce, Marital Property Division, Business Valuations, Child Custody/Visitation, Spousal & Child Support and Modification. He was named a Maryland Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2021.

Christopher earned his J.D. in 2011, from the University of Baltimore School of Law.

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 50 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has worked with individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia, taking on the most complex of legal issues with sophisticated counsel and a personal touch. JGL serves clients in virtually all areas of the law.

2022 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which will allow the Court to decline to award any child support if certain circumstances exist.  Child support law current through June 30, 2022 does not entitle a Court to decline to order child support.  These changes will be found in Family Law Article §12-202(b) and apply to cases filed on and after July 1, 2022*.

Circumstances under the new law allowing a no support order are:

  • The child lives with the parent from whom support is sought and the parent is contributing to the child’s expenses
  • The parent is unemployed, has no resources to pay child support, and is incarcerated and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid (but also see 2020 updates about incarcerated obligors/payors)
  • The parent is institutionalized in a psychiatric care facility and expected to remain so for the remaining time support would be paid
  • The parent is totally and permanently disabled, unable to obtain or maintain employment, and has no income other than SSI or SSCI benefits (in which case, there is usually a dependent benefit paid for the child’s support)
  • The parent is unable to obtain or maintain employment in the foreseeable future due to criminal detainment, hospitalization or rehab

Interestingly, the new law also provides that a parent meeting or ceasing to meet the criteria above shall be a material change in circumstance to modify the child support award.  This recognizes that the qualifying circumstances above may not be permanent and support could be awarded in future.

However, the law doesn’t tell us how this material change language fits with Family Law Article §12-202(b), that changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support.  So, if the circumstances above exist on June 30, 2022, can a parent receive a termination or suspension of child support based upon the new law?  Hard to say for sure.  But if a parent does not make a request of the court, a parent won’t know.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and perhaps because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.  So, by comparison, requiring payment of child support when a parent has no legally justifiable ability to pay may result in less child support being paid over the child’s lifetime.  Also, certain of the circumstances are in keeping with federal law.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • Don’t forget Family Law Article §12-104.1 if the basis is incarceration.  Because these two statutes are different but both apply to incarcerated payors obligors.  Compare the two when incarceration is justification for a suspension or termination of support.  (See article about 2020 Updates Incarcerated Obligors/Payors)
  • Consider material change if requesting a modification after July 1, 2022*.  Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)).  Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support.  Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings.  And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.
  • Use the 2022 law changes as a reference point for the Court.  If a termination or suspension of child support is requested before July 1, 2022 based on circumstances that would allow a no support order under the new law, refer the Court to the new law if helpful to your position.
  • Don’t delay.  If these circumstances exist now, they may justify a modification, suspension, or termination of child support now.  Plus, modification can only be granted retroactive to the date a request is filed with the court*.

* Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply.  Worth a look if interested in applying July 1, 2022 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2022:

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.

2022 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which introduces new Maryland law on the self-support reserve for low income parents for cases filed on and after July 1, 2022*.

The self-support reserve recognizes that parents at the lowest income levels require a basic amount of money to live on before being able to pay child support.  The self-support reserve standardizes this calculation, while still allowing deviation in appropriate cases.

Laws current through June 30, 2022 allow the Court to use its discretion in calculating child support now at these lowest income levels.  Either in the suggested amounts of $20-150 per month for combined parent monthly incomes of $100-$1,200 or to deviate from the guidelines (so, adjust) if applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and because research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.  Standardizing realistic child support at lower income levels should encourage payment of more support overall and simplify the calculation of child support.  Reviews of low income child support cases showed that, despite the Court’s discretion and suggested lower support amounts, in more than 40% of cases awards were higher than $150 per month.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • Calculate and compare!  If requesting child support in a lower income case, calculate and compare current guidelines to the 2022 guidelines.
  • Be aware of filing deadlines*.  The July 1, 2022 changes apply to cases filed on and after July 1, 2022.  Not cases filed before.
  • Use the 2022 guidelines as a reference point for the Court.  If child support is discretionary or downward deviation/reduction requested, show the Court the 2022 guidelines as a reference point for the appropriate amount of support.
  • Consider retroactivity.  When weighing filing deadlines, consider that child support and changes to child support can only be awarded dating back to the date the request is filed with the court (Family Law Article §12-104)*.
  • Consider material change if requesting a modification after July 1, 2022*.  Per Maryland law, changes to the child support guidelines law are not, themselves alone, a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)).  Other material changes are needed to obtain a modification of child support.  Make sure those changes exist and are stated in your Court filings.  And if not and helpful to your position, point that out to the Court.

* Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply.  Worth a look if interested in applying July 1, 2022 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2022:

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.

UPDATE:  During the 2021 Session, the Maryland General Assembly changed the effective date of this law change from October 1, 2021 (as originally passed in the 2020 Session) to July 1, 2022.

2022 will see 5 major changes to the child support guidelines, one of which concerns statutory updates to existing law on voluntary impoverishment and potential income.

Voluntary impoverishment basically means a parent choosing to be unemployed or underemployed (so, reduced his or her income) in order to avoid paying child support.  Starting July 1, 2022 for cases filed on and after that date*, Maryland will see changes to its child support definitions statute (Family Law Article §12-201 (PDF)) to:

  • Add “Voluntarily Impoverished”:  A parent has made the free and conscious choice, not compelled by factors beyond the parent’s control, to render the parent without adequate resources.  This definition is taken word for word from existing case law, Goldberger v. Goldberger, 96 Md.App. 313 (1993).
  • Update “Potential Income”, which is income attributed to a voluntarily impoverished parent based upon their potential and probable earnings level, taking into account an updated series of factors:
    • The parent’s:
      • Age
      • Physical and behavioral condition
      • Educational attainment
      • Special training or skills
      • Literacy
      • Residence
      • Occupational qualifications and job skills
      • Employment and earnings history
      • Record of efforts to obtain and retain employment
      • Criminal record and other employment barriers
    • Employment opportunities in the community where the parents lives, including:
      • Status of the job market
      • Prevailing earnings levels
      • Availability of employers willing to hire the parent
    • The parent’s assets
    • The parent’s actual income from all sources
    • Any other factor bearing on parent’s ability to obtain funds for child support

The new law also sets out a framework in Family Law Article §12-204(b)(2) (PDF) for requiring the court to make a finding of voluntary impoverishment and consider the factors stated above when determining potential income.  Without explicitly requiring it, the statute certainly encourages the Court to state its reasons for the decision and how it considered the factors listed above.

Why did this come about?  Because Maryland is legally required to review its child support guidelines every 4 years and to keep up to date with federal law.  Per the Low-Income Subcommittee proposing these changes, these promote transparency and stronger focus on realistic consideration of potential income and amount of child support and discourage improper decisions.  In fact, research has shown that child support orders for too high an amount in fact result in less child support actually being paid.

What tips should parents and attorneys keep in mind?

  • There are exceptions.  Don’t forget that Family Law Article §12-204(b) does not allow a court to attribute income to a parent who is either unable to work because of physical or mental disability or is caring for a child under the age of 2 years for whom the parents are jointly and severally responsible (so, a child in common).
  • Collect & plan your evidence.  The potential income definition provides a detailed roadmap of the factors a court should consider.  Which requires evidence.  How will you prove a parent’s efforts to obtain and retain employment?  Status of the local job market?  Prevailing wages?  Availability of employers willing to hire the parent?  Parent’s assets?  Online job listings and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics may be just two starting points.  Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and trial subpoenas, a few of many tools, may be needed to ask about the parent’s efforts.
  • Does it call for an expert?  Attributing high income potential may justify hiring a vocational rehabilitation expert to research and testify about the local job market, local wages, and willingness of employers to hire.  This requires consideration of the expert’s cost and potential benefit.

* Maryland law does not allow legislative changes to the child support guidelines law, themselves alone, to serve a material change in circumstance to justify a modification of child support (Maryland Code, Family Law Article §12-202(b)) or modification of child support to a date before a request is filed with the Court.  But Damon v. Robles, 245 Md.App. 233 (2020) provides an interesting and complicated discussion of when these exclusions may not apply.  Worth a look if interested in applying July 1, 2022 changes to cases filed or circumstances existing before that date.

For other articles in this series about updates to the child support guidelines law in 2020 and 2022:

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.

UPDATE:  During the 2021 Session, the Maryland General Assembly changed the effective date of this law change from October 1, 2021 (as originally passed in the 2020 Session) to July 1, 2022.

The 2020 Session of the Maryland General Assembly saw several major developments to Maryland’s law on child support, some of which went into effect October 1, 2020 and the others (originally supposed to go into effect October 1, 2021) starting July 1, 2022.

This series of articles discusses those changes and provides tips for parents and attorneys in child support negotiation, mediation, and litigation.

The series covers these changes in the law:

My biggest tip: Calculate & Compare.  What does that mean?  Read each article to find out…

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.

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorney, Matthew J. Focht & Melissa Mordell Gomez.

In this episode, they discuss the following topics and more:

  1. Tools used to make predictions about Jury behaviors
  2. Affects of the pandemic on the process
  3. Experience of Maryland-specific Jury trials
  4. Advice for attorneys as trial resume back

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

All Told, Whistleblowers Responsible For Over $33M Back To Taxpayers

GREENBELT, MD – May 3, 2021 – A whistleblower case filed in 2016 concluded after the remaining defendant, spine surgeon Wilson Asfora, settled with the government for $4.4 million and a six-year exclusion from all federal payer programs, effectively precluding him from practicing medicine during that time.

Two fellow surgeons filed the complaint as whistleblowers under the False Claims Act. They alleged that Asfora sold his own medical devices for surgeries he performed, resulting in an unlawful economic incentive for him to use, and overuse, his own devices on unsuspecting patients. They alleged that the result was multi-level, medically unnecessary spinal fusion surgeries on scores of patients. The complaint recounted that before filing, the whistleblowers first implored Asfora and Sanford to stop the dangerous, unnecessary spinal surgeries to no avail.

The United States joined (intervened) the lawsuit, filing its own complaint against Asfora. The government complaint echoed whistleblowers’ — that Asfora engaged in kickback schemes to pay himself to use his medical devices in surgeries. It also alleged that Asfora received numerous warnings for years that he was performing unnecessary surgeries with his devices while personally profiting, and that patients were harmed.

The Department of Justice announced today its settlement with Asfora for $4.4 million and a rare exclusion for him and his entities from all federal healthcare programs, including Medicare, for six years. Acting U.S. Attorney Dennis R. Holmes for the District of South Dakota commented, “South Dakota is fortunate to have many honest and dedicated healthcare providers who strive daily to provide high quality services. Dr. Asfora and his companies violated the trust that so many others have worked hard to earn.”

The whistleblowers are dedicated healthcare workers who, as of today, met their goal of protecting patients from these unnecessary and harmful surgeries and seeing changes to ensure this does not happen again. All told, the whistleblowers’ information led to over $33 million in recovery for the government related to Asfora, though they do not share in all of those recoveries.

For its part, Sanford fired Asfora and settled with the federal government for $20.25 million, believed to be the largest qui tam settlement in South Dakota history. It also entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General requiring monitoring and changes to its compliance and anti-kickback policies. Sanford separately settled with South Dakota for $329,412.21 for Medicaid charges related to the Asfora claims.

The federal government separately pursued Medtronic USA, Inc. related to allegations that it paid kickbacks to Asfora to induce his use of its products. According to the Department of Justice, at Asfora’s request, Medtronic allegedly paid him kickbacks through his restaurant, Carnaval Brazilian Grill, in the form of lavish meals and alcohol for Asfora and his friends, colleagues and business partners. The United States settled with Medtronic for over $9.2 million in late 2020.   

Asfora denied the allegations, continuing to defend the claims after Sanford settled, and filing his own action against Sanford alleging wrongful termination. Earlier this year, however, Asfora dismissed the Sanford suit. With today’s announced settlement, all pending public actions are resolved.

JGL’s Veronica Nannis and Jay Holland represent the physician whistleblowers. “Though many knew about the alleged improper conduct, our clients were the only ones who came forward publicly, despite real risk to their reputations and their very livelihoods,” commented Nannis. “We are so proud to represent them and to see a measure of justice served,” she added.   

Mr. Holland thanked the assistance of their esteemed South Dakota local counsel, Robert Anderson, and praised the comprehensive investigation and skilled litigation performed by the experienced government attorneys dedicated to this case, particularly DOJ Trial Attorneys Chris Terranova and Harin Song along with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Meghan Roche and Ellie Bailey from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sioux Falls. “The government’s tenacity in investigating and wholeheartedly pursuing this case all the way to conclusion underscores its continued commitment to protect patients, root out fraud and protect taxpayer dollars,” said Holland. 

Greenbelt, Maryland based Joseph, Greenwald & Laake filed the lawsuit in August 2016. The case caption is U.S. ex rel Bechtold v. Sanford Health, et al., Case 4:16-cv-04115-LLP (S.D.).

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, we have JGL Attorney, Debora Fajer-Smith & David Schoenfeld.

In this episode, they discuss the following topics and more:

  1. The new emergency case the new emergency case 
  2. Covid and causation in the work force  
  3. Gig economy cases such as drivers and delivery 
  4. Stay-at-home work related injuries 

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

Representation of client in wrongful death medical malpractice case with a verdict of $6,000,000.

Subscribe