Anyone with a money market account or mutual fund knows, that return on investment is down across the board. Although many Americans do not consider Social Security an investment, it is the foundation of retirement funding for most people in this country. What once was a great deal for elderly workers is no longer the case. In the past, workers paid far less in Social Security taxes, so they often received more back than they paid in.

According to a recent article by the Associated Press, a worker who retired in 1960 could expect to receive seven times what they paid in to the system as long as they lived to 78. Since the 1990’s high income earners have been receiving less than they have paid in because of the progressive structure of Social Security. Now more middle-income earners are in the same situation. A typical middle income couple that both contributed to the system will not receive the amount they paid into the system unless they continue to collect benefits beyond 85. The problem is occurring because of fewer workers contributing compared to the amount of retirees receiving benefits. Currently, there are only 2.8 workers contributing for each retiree.

This budget problem affects Social Security Disability payments as well since those payments are funded from the same source. Several factors have stressed that system including the aging of baby boomers, slowing of the economy, and the increase of women in the workforce. For more detail see our Social Security disability informational news blog.

For the full AP article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5heZljyVLTuLty0r3nZ6KfiTVk_Mg?docId=68060b5bb4384d699b2e686f5f979b26

Many of today’s American senior citizens grew up under the American ideal that real estate would always flourish and appreciate in value. Today, more seniors than ever before are now struggling to make mortgage payments and being threatened with foreclosure.

Last month, the nation got its first solid evidence of how the real estate bust is affecting its senior citizens in an AARP report aptly named “Nightmare on Main Street: Older Americans and the Mortgage Market Crisis.”

Despite older homeowners having lower foreclosure and mortgage delinquency rates than people under age 50, these numbers are still rising for senior citizens. Some of AARP’s troubling findings are as follows:

While only 0.58 percent of homeowners over the age of 65 were in foreclosure in 2007, the number jumped to 5.7 percent in 2011. In the same age bracket, more than 5 percent of homeowners are 90 days or more late on mortgage payments as of 2011, which is up from 1.28 percent in 2007. 25 percent of subprime loans of borrowers age 50 or older were also 90 days or more late on mortgage payments or already in foreclosure as of 2011.

While homeownership is usually seen as the safety net for seniors in retirement, these older Americans were not immune to the real estate craze and its ultimate crash. In hopes to cash in on the boom, many older homeowners sold their homes at top dollar and purchased investment properties that ended up flopping. As of December 2011, 3.5 million loans for people age 50 and older were struggling with no equity. In the same age bracket, 600,000 loans were already in foreclosure.

There were even cases in which senior citizens were taken advantage of during the real estate boom. In one instance, an 86 year-old man received a call in 2005 offering him a risk free way to make money on real estate. The mortgage broker, who ended up being unlicensed, had the World War II veteran take out a mortgage on his property that he already owned in order to buy additional investment properties. Now the properties are in foreclosure and his own home in Delray Beach is struggling.

“To face losing your home at a certain age, there’s no time to recover from that,” said Susan Reinhard, senior vice president of AARP’s public policy institute. “If they can’t sell their home, they can’t go to assisted living. That’s a problem.”

Reinhard also stated that AARP plans to release mortgage and foreclosure data that is specific to Florida by the end of the year. While no one knows for sure, the data is expected to reflect what we have already been seeing on the national scale.

For more information, check out the article “Housing Bust Sinks Seniors” in the July 26, 2012 issue of The Palm Beach Post.

Florida's "stand your ground" law offers the broadest protection of any state. The laws official name is “Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.” The law allows anyone to use deadly force to protect themselves or others if they fear that death or bodily harm is imminent. The law allows for homeowners to use deadly force if someone is forcibly entering their home. Under the law, the person using deadly force has no requirement to retreat from the perceived threat. You are allowed to meet force with force no matter where you are.

This law applies at home, in your car and in public. If you believe that someone is going to kill you or cause great bodily harm then you may use deadly force on a public sidewalk. The law has had some unintended consequences, though. According to the Tampa Bay Times, "stand your ground" is frequently evoked by people with long criminal histories. According to the story, “more than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.” This is based on research the paper did into the 119 times that “stand your ground” has been evoked by defendants since being signed into law in 2005. One such example of the unintended consequences of this law is Jackson Fleurimon, who was granted immunity in 2009 for a fatal shooting that resulted from a dispute over drug turf.

Stories like this one and the national news coverage of the George Zimmerman case have brought Florida’s stand your ground law to the forefront of debate. It may be time to reevaluate how the law is applied to cases where two people encounter each other in public. Perhaps this law has been effected by unintended consequences. It is unlikely that the drafters of this legislation intended to protect drug dealers while they wage war over turf. The law may need to be amended, so there is a duty to retreat before invoking deadly force.

Reference Articles: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html/

While retirement is often seen as the inevitable and much deserved time for rest and relaxation after years spent in the workforce, many baby boomers are now becoming more reluctant about hanging up their hats early. As 50 and 60-somethings continue to struggle with lay-offs and unemployment, these individuals are experiencing troubles when attempting to launch back into new jobs. Since baby boomers are far less likely than younger workers to change their paths or delve into a new career to accommodate for the struggling job market, long-term unemployed boomers find themselves forced into early retirement simply because they have given up on finding new jobs. For those that take early retirement and also accept early Social Security benefits, their monthly payments are reduced, which ultimately affects them their whole lives.

Pre-recession, the workforce saw the opposite of this trend with workers generally retiring much later in life. With the switch to 401(k) retirement accounts as opposed to fixed pension benefits, many workers at the time tended to hold onto their jobs longer in order to put more money into their nest eggs. The rising age requirement for Social Security benefits also encouraged workers to stay in the workforce longer.

These days, we do still see workers staying at their jobs and building up their retirement funds. These older workers who are lucky enough to still have good jobs are hanging onto them as long as they can in order to rebuild lost investments and account for a slow economy. On the other hand, an emerging trend shows that many unemployed workers who are not as fortunate are doing the opposite and tapping into retirement funds early. What is interesting to note is that these two trends have visible income-related factors. As low-income jobs tend to be less secure and more physically demanding for workers, individuals eventually become too old to be able to do them and search for bridge jobs in order to help them taper off into retirement. However, the economic recession has made the competition for even small-bridge jobs extremely high. In contrast, high-income jobs are generally more secure and less physically demanding, which allows older workers to stay at their jobs longer.

Regardless of these factors, baby boomers of all income brackets can end up facing lay-offs and unemployment. As many unemployed baby boomers search for bridge jobs to help ease them into retirement, competition skyrockets for entry-level and less-skilled positions. Now in the pool against 20 and 30-somethings as well as other fellow boomers, it looks like early retirement will be something more and more baby boomers will have to consider.

For the full Palm Beach Post article: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/employment/tough-job-market-sending-many-baby-boomers-into-ea/nP2tj/

The US Department of Justice recently celebrated the 22nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act with its 200th settlement under Project Civic Access (PCA). PCA is the program that is being used to force recalcitrant local government entities to comply with Title II of the ADA. The 200th settlement was recently reached involving Kansas City, Mo.

Despite the ADA being in place for more than 20 years, many government facilities and programs are still not accessible to persons with disabilities. By having established PCA, the Department of Justice has been forcing local governments into compliance. The recent settlement covers not only the physical facilities of Kansas City but also programs and services, including Internet access and emergency alerts.

The USDOJ is to be commended on this 200th settlement. However, it is unfortunate that local governments are not taking the initiative themselves. Hopefully, it will not take another 22 years for all local governments to be compliant.

Persons interested in filing a grievance or complaint against local government agencies can contact the USDOJ through its website at http://www.ada.gov, or call the toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 or (800) 514-0383 (TTY). For persons with disabilities who have experienced discrimination by a business or property owner, LaBovick Law Group has a dedicated ADA litigation/enforcement department that strives to enforce compliance through mediation and/or litigation. For a free consultation, please call department head Joseph R. Fields, Jr., Esq. at 561-625-8400.

Holy cow are the trial lawyers up in arms! New Hampshire just created an “early offer” program to try and bring medical malpractice victims together with their doctors and the insurance companies to create an early settlement offer incentive to avoid litigation. The lawyers are afraid that patients will not know their rights and may be taken advantage of by the more sophisticated insurance company employees and the doctors. As a trial lawyer who has no bone to pick in medical malpractice cases, (We handle hospital and doctor medical and health care issues, and are conflicted in taking medical malpractice cases.), it sounds great to me. The big issues are that there is a “loser pays” provision and that the plaintiff must post a bond if he/she rejects the offer and pursues litigation.

What I see in the world is that perception is reality, and the facts are irrelevant. What do I mean? Well, the perception is that the Justice system and the court system are broken. There are far too many frivolous and unworthy injury cases, especially medical malpractice cases. Most of the public believes that we need to pass new laws to change the system and correct the problem. The facts are not relevant. The facts tell a different story. The facts, from a trial lawyer's perspective, would tell you that because the perception is so skewed against plaintiffs that injured victims don’t get a fair trial in many places in America today. I am sure many people reading this will say “Bull! it is the plaintiffs getting money for every stupid dopey thing, like spilling coffee on their own lap at McDonalds!” But, trust me, on balance, I see far more injustice on the too conservative jury side vs. the too liberal with money and giving it away side. Is there injustice on both ends of the spectrum? Absolutely. But no system is perfect and ours, on balance, is pretty good.

However, my point to this rant is that none of that is really relevant. The American public believes we need a change and therefore, we need a change. Further, I am not absolutely opposed to a change. My feeling is that we need to make sure the public has faith in the way America does business; that includes resolving disputes. Medical malpractice is a hard dispute to settle. It affects people personally and deeply. Again, regardless of the facts, the public believes most of the malpractice disputes are frivolous or unfair to the doctors. Therefore, searching for a new method of finding a fair way of settling these disputes in not unfair to any party, certainly not trial lawyers. If the new laws are unfair to either side, I am sure the people who are injured or harmed by it will protest, and new amendments or changes to the law can be made. Yes, some people will be made to suffer under the new law's first draft, so to speak, but that is the collateral damage new laws cause. It is the sacrifice we, the members of the public, must make to continue to improve the way we interact and handle business in America.

The real issue is that poor people won’t have the money to post a bond. Most states will not permit the lawyer to post the bond as a part of the business relationship. Therefore, if the patient doesn’t have bond money to post, then who pays? My thought is that legitimate loan sharks will pay if the case is great, and the risk is low. These loan sharks are really called No Recourse Case Advance Companies. They give money to the plaintiff during the case and get paid back double, triple or even quadruple when the case is settles. But if the case is not won by the plaintiff, the advance company can’t collect anything from the plaintiff. The other choice is that the plaintiff just lives with the damages and that is it. It is just life. Rich people who can post a bond will always be able to sue. But this isn’t a new analysis. This is the reason the Contingency Attorney Fee Contract first was created. Poor people who were hurt and could not afford to pay an attorney could hire one on a contingency (the attorney gets a percentage at the end) to file their claim.

As for the lawyers, don’t feel bad. There are lots of ways to make money in the law. I am sure medical malpractice will not go away in New Hampshire. I am also sure the “Early Out” will have positive and negative effects, and what better a test state than New Hampshire? – Live Free or Die Trying!

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with a report recently that illustrates the growth of Social Security Disability as the population ages. Social Security pays cash benefits to persons under the age of 66 who are no longer able to work due to physical and mental ailments. Social Security Disability paid cash benefits to 8.3 million people in 2011; that is nearly six times the amount of disabled workers that received benefits in 1970. When you add in children and spouses, the number climbs past 10 million.

Much of this growth is attributed to an aging population as baby boomers enter their 50’s and approach retirement. According to the CBO report, from 1996 through 2009, "the approximate period during which the baby-boom generation entered their 50s -- the share of disabled worker benefits awarded to older workers (age 45 and older) rose from 67 percent to 76 percent." The amount of Americans receiving disability has risen to 4.5% of the work force, those between 21 and 64.

What this means for Social Security applicants is that the process has become more difficult. The rise in applicants has seen a rise in rejections, especially at the early stages of the claims process. It is more important than ever before to have someone guide you through the disability process. If you need disability benefits, you must prove to Social Security that you qualify. This requires compiling medical reports, prescription records, employment history and piles of biographical information. This can be daunting for someone unfamiliar with the system and dealing with the daily pains of disability. If you believe that you need disability you need to reach out to an experienced Social Security Attorney to assist you with your application.

If you would like to file for disability, you can contact the LaBovick Law Group for a free consultation. We do not charge up-front attorney fees for Social Security cases and are only paid if your claim is successful.

To read the entire CBO report, follow this link:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43421-DisabilityInsurance_screen.pdf