The Truth About Marketplace Health Plan Rates

You may have heard stories about dramatic increases in private health insurance rates since the implementation of health reform. Although Illinois insurance carriers recently sent preliminary 2017 rates to regulatory authorities, we likely won’t know what the final prices and plans for next year look like until closer to the beginning of open enrollment. But we already know that misinformation about increased rates is being hyped by the media.

Fingers crossed behind backThis is a lie about Obamacare plans that we’ve heard before. What stories about these proposed rate filings often miss is that, even if premiums go up, financial assistance (through tax credits) to help pay for those premium increases as well. Simply put, the majority of consumers in the Marketplace won’t feel the premium price increases that the media often focuses on.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proves the point. The report found that, last year, the average cost of Marketplace coverage for people getting tax credits went from $102 to $106 per month—a modest increase, especially when you think about how costs for everything tend to rise.

In Illinois, 75% of Marketplace consumers receive tax credits based on their income. By design, tax credits increase if the cost of the benchmark plan (the second lowest-cost silver plan) goes up. So if all premiums in a market go up by similar amounts, consumers who get tax credits will not necessarily pay more, because their tax credits will go up to compensate.

In addition, if a Marketplace consumer isn’t happy with his or her current plan—either because the premium went up or for another reason—the consumer has the ability to, and in fact is encouraged to, come back and shop around. According to HHS, nearly 50% of returning consumers selected a new plan for 2016. In Illinois, that number was greater than 50%, and those consumers saved an average of $636 annually.

The stories we keep seeing about big rate increases happen only in a world that doesn’t exist. As the HHS report notes, “the average premium changes reported in insurers’ rate announcements assume a scenario in which no consumer leaves the Marketplace, no new consumers enroll, nobody switches plans, no new plans are offered, and no one receives tax credits.” We know from the past three years of Marketplace experience, these assumptions do not reflect reality. Beyond the fact that the majority of Marketplace customers receive tax credits, we know that consumers whose income or job situation changes will move between the Marketplace and employer-subsidized plans or Medicaid. Moreover, for better or for worse, the Marketplace is robust with choices (the number of plans in Illinois increased from 410 choices in 2015 to 480 choices in 2016) so people will often “vote with their pocketbook” and switch plans.

Of course any increase in premium prices for Marketplace consumers will be a hardship to many. Moreover, out-of-pocket costs (like high deductibles) continue to concern Illinois consumers. However, it’s important to step back and remember that before the Affordable Care Act, affordable, quality health care was completely out of reach for many consumers—for example the millions of people with pre-existing conditions. And for many more, health care plans excluded important services like maternity care or mental health treatment.

Now, Illinois consumers have the option to purchase quality health plans and have the financial assistance to help pay for them. The media need to acknowledge the immense benefits of these tax credits, if they are going to responsibly report on premiums.

The Justice-Involved Are Key to Justice Reform

The 70 million justice-involved Americans—individuals with arrest or criminal records who have been socially, politically, and economically starved by our failing criminal justice system—deserve a seat at the table where justice reform is being discussed. Their anecdotal experiences, combined with data, serve to illustrate the systematic failures of our criminal justice system and the collateral consequences that create barriers to employment, housing, and public benefits. Their voices have an important potential to impact policy.

Woman studying at libraryHigher education is an important area for reform. The U.S. Department of Education’s recently released report, Beyond the Box, Increasing Access to Higher Education for Justice-Involved Individuals, describes college and university policies and practices that have limited access of the justice-involved to higher education. The report noted the importance of campus safety, which is vital given the rise of sexual assault on college campuses, while also ensuring that blanket criminal background policies do not discourage qualified candidates from applying in the first place. The report includes many recommendations, options, and examples of current commended practices at schools, including:

  • Delaying the request for, or consideration of, criminal justice information collected until after an admission decision has been made;
  • Giving students the opportunity to explain their criminal justice involvement and preparedness for postsecondary study;
  • Offering targeted academic and career guidance to students with past justice involvement; and
  • Using on-campus employment opportunities to help formerly incarcerated individuals create an employment history.

Removing barriers to higher education for our justice-involved population has the potential to enrich the classroom experience, as these students “are able to bring a unique perspective to classroom discussion with their peers.” Moreover, professions that require a college degree can benefit from having justice-involved individuals, who have personal and practical knowledge of the criminal justice system, in their workforce. For example, as teachers and counselors justice-involved individuals can provide insight on how to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline. As attorneys, justice-involved individuals have the potential to represent people whose shoes they’ve walked in, and to inform the legal community of the pitfalls of criminal statutes and procedure.

States such as Ohio have already acknowledged the importance of incorporating the voices of justice-involved individuals in their criminal justice reform efforts. House Bill 130 called for the formation of an Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition that serves as a guiding hub for expanding and improving reentry efforts across state and local agencies and communities. The bill requires the coalition to have a member that has been convicted of one or more felonies or misdemeanors in Ohio, and be “willing to share the challenges or barriers that have occurred as a result.” Only when we listen to the challenges and barriers faced by justice-involved individuals can their experiences be elevated into effective policies.

The Department of Education’s recommendations would help justice-involved individuals move into professions that place them at the table of justice reform. Institutions of higher education should step up and pull out their chair by implementing these recommendations. By removing barriers to education for the justice-involved, we remove barriers to justice reform. 


More Americans Live on Less

If you stopped at Starbucks for a cup of coffee on your way in to work today, you have already spent more than what many in the United States subsist on for an entire day. Some level of extreme deprivation has always existed in America — but, in the past two decades, the number of people in its grip has exploded. 

This — the steep rise of extreme poverty, particularly among households with children — was the topic of a panel discussion at the Harold Washington Library here in Chicago recently. The event’s featured speaker was Kathryn Edin, a sociologist and one of the nation’s leading poverty researchers. She spoke about her and Luke Shafer’s recently published best seller, $2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America — a mix of sociology and storytelling that puts faces to the millions of Americans who live on virtually no income.

$2 billsAs Edin explained, her and Shafer’s book reveals a troubling trend. Since the late 1990s, the share of Americans living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) has fluctuated between roughly 11% and 15% of the population. But within that group, an increasing number of households are living in what Edin and Shafer define as “extreme poverty.” In 1996, about 636,000 households subsisted on less than $2 per person, per day, in income. By 2011, that number had ballooned to 1.5 million — a 160% increase.

Why the dramatic growth? Edin and Shafer show — both in their book and elsewhere — that it can be traced back to sharp reductions in cash assistance imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) — popularly known as welfare reform. Passed in 1996, welfare reform replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a federally regulated cash benefit program, with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a block grant given to each state to operate their own programs. Along with giving states more flexibility — states can use federal block grant dollars to pay for a wide array of things other than basic cash assistance — it also imposed strict work requirements and time limits on aid. The reform, in effect, put an “end to welfare as we know it.”

Although the purported goal of welfare reform was to boost labor force participation, research shows that welfare reform, over time, has failed on this front. There simply aren’t enough jobs, let alone decent-paying jobs, at the bottom of the labor market to go around. So instead, it has resulted in cutting off millions of our nation’s most at risk people from a much-needed lifeline. In 1996, 68 out of every 100 poor families with children received cash benefits; by 2013, that number had fallen to 23. In a handful of states, as few as 7 out of every 100 poor families with children now receive assistance.

To be sure, the cash benefits provided in the pre-reform era weren’t enough to cover the cost of living — and families still struggled to get by — but the assistance at least provided a subsistence level of support. Now, left without a reliable safety net to fall back on, many individuals resort to precarious ways of trying to make ends meet — methods that Edin and Shafer call “survival strategies.” They donate blood plasma multiple times per week. They collect and sell discounted metal. They move into crowded and unsafe living conditions.  

Despite their persistence and resourcefulness, most are unable make it out of extreme poverty. And the harsh circumstances exact a sharp toll. Edin and Shafer didn’t conduct research on the health consequences of $2-a-day poverty, but they introduce us to families who go without food for stretches of several days, and to women and children who regularly experience physical and sexual abuse. A few individuals express a desire to die.

By shedding light on the real-life suffering caused by welfare reform, Edin and Shafer’s work has forcefully reaffirmed an important lesson: the existence and severity of American poverty are direct results of public policy decisions. Poverty persists in our country because we choose to allow it to. Failing to provide an adequate safety net is a decision we make — one driven by the same amount of agency, and carrying the same amount of culpability, as a decision to intervene proactively.

Trevor Brown contributed to this blog.


Liberty Life Denies Long Term Disability Benefits to Walmart Employee in Kentucky

In Owens v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life), plaintiff Paulette Owens quit her job at Walmart when physical restrictions prevented her from working. This opinion does not provide a job description nor mention her specific disability other than saying she quit work when “physical restrictions and limitations” prevented her from working. She was granted long term disability benefits, but one year later, her benefits were terminated. She exhausted her administrative appeals and then filed this ERISA lawsuit.

The main issue presented in this court action concerned the standard of review the court should use in evaluating plaintiff’s claim. Language in the policy gave the Liberty Life plan administrator discretionary review, yet Arkansas law invalidated such policy language for all policies issued after March 1, 2013. Two sub-issues were raised: 1) Did the new law apply to this particular policy; and 2) Did the Liberty Life Plan Administrator exercise that discretion or contract it out.

The New Arkansas Law Did Not Apply to this Policy

The first issue was whether the court should evaluate the termination of benefits under the arbitrary and capricious standard, which requires the court to give high deference to the decision of the plan administrator, or the de novo standard, which gives no deference at all to the plan administrator’s decision. Language in the policy granted Liberty Life “sole discretion…to determine benefit eligibility.”

The policy also stated that “Liberty reserves the right to determine if your Proof of loss is satisfactory.” This language means the court would use the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. Meanwhile, the Arkansas Legislature changed the law and invalidated such clauses effective for policies issued on or after March 1, 2013. Since the plaintiff became disabled in April 2013 under a policy that was issued on July 23, 2012, the new law did not apply. Thus, Liberty’s termination of plaintiff’s disability benefits would be reviewed according to the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Liberty Life Exercised Discretion and did not Rely on Liberty Mutual

The plaintiff argued that, contrary to policy language, Liberty Life delegated its duty to exercise discretion to contract employees from Liberty Mutual. She alleged that these employees were not “the plan administrator” and have not been “delegated discretionary authority.” Liberty Life claimed that all Liberty Mutual did was provide employees to Liberty Life, for which Liberty Life reimbursed Liberty Mutual.

Following a detailed analysis of the relationship between Liberty Life and Liberty Mutual, the court determined “that the ultimate benefit determination as made by Liberty Life.” The court concluded that based on all of its analysis, “the appropriate standard of review of this matter is the arbitrary and capricious standard.”

This case was not handled by our office, but we feel it can be instructive to someone who may have similar language in a disability policy and live in a state that has made such discretionary clauses unacceptable. As in this case, the date of the policy may be crucial in determining the standard of review a court will use in evaluating a termination or denial of benefits. If you have questions about any aspect of your disability claim, contact one of our attorneys for a free case evaluation.

The Path to Equal Justice

For almost 100 years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has partnered with charitable and publicly funded efforts to provide legal services for the poor. 

Path through the woodsIn 1919, Reginald Heber Smith, a practitioner in a legal aid charity, argued that it was the duty of the law profession to ensure access to justice for everyone regardless of income. In his seminal book, Justice and the Poor, Smith asserted that, where the law caused injustice or unfairness to low-income clients, this duty included vigorous attempts to reform the law itself.

Smith had crucial allies among America’s top lawyers, including Charles Evans Hughes, a statesman, lawyer, and Supreme Court Justice. At its 1920 convention, Hughes engineered the ABA’s endorsement of legal services for all and the creation of a the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, or SCLAID, a committee that exists to this day.

In 1967, as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty, Sargent Shriver added legal services as a service provided to low-income communities through the Community Action Program. The ABA, through its then-president, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, was a key ally in moving the legal services component of the War on Poverty through Congress.

Hearkening back to Reginald Heber Smith’s model, Shriver endorsed the notion that representation should include policy-type work, then known as “law reform.”  This was consistent with Shriver’s belief people in poor communities should be given tools to create their own paths out of poverty, not handouts.    

Landlords, investors, bankers, employers—virtually every interest group is represented in debate over policies and budgets that implicate the interests of low-income people. The lone exception, until the War on Poverty, was people in poverty themselves. Through legal services, low-income people got a seat at the table and began to win or influence some of these debates. The process was fairer, and the concept of equal justice was more complete.

Not surprisingly, the very success of this model also brought constant pressure from opposing interests to terminate or constrain it. Consistent support from the ABA thwarted efforts to terminate the legal services program, but in 1996 Congress severely restricted the ability of lawyers in frontline programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation to engage in many types of policy work in legislatures, administrative agencies, and the courts.

Since then, efforts to provide legal representation to low-income people on policy and budget debates have been funded privately, mostly by foundations and donors. Lawyers and law firms in private practice have become key leaders. They serve as board members and contributors to legal services providers. And they are pro bono co-counsel in high-impact “law reform” litigation that nonprofit legal aid organizations, standing alone, might not have the resources to undertake. 

The Shriver Center, where I work, arose in response to that 1996 crisis. Today, the Shriver Center also leads a network of state-focused law and policy organizations working in 32 states and the District of Columbia – the Legal Impact Network. Although all of these organizations have an impressive record of legal and policy advocacy victories on behalf of low-income people, some of the network’s members have very small staffs, all of them are under-funded, and all need support

Today, the ABA continues its support of the movement to ensure justice for the poor. This week, key players in the civil justice system, including advocates, pro bono providers, and bar leaders, will gather in Chicago at the Equal Justice Conference, a joint effort of the ABA and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. Much of the focus at this year’s conference will be on efforts to ensure that everyone who needs an attorney can find and afford one.

Beyond access to justice, ongoing efforts by the ABA and others to support programs that provide policy and systemic advocacy for low-income clients are more important than ever. It is only with the robust participation of lawyers in every state—as board members, donors, and pro bono partners—that we may obtain the fullest measure of equal justice for poor clients.   

State Policymakers Battle over Doctrine While Real People Suffer

Toy SoldiersIt is the job of every state policymaker to consider and enact laws and policies that serve the greater good of their constituents. Yet earlier this week a New York Times editorial called out Illinois and Kansas as the leading examples of states where policymakers are doing harm instead of good. Illinois is in a record ten-month budget impasse that is eroding much of its educational and social services systems. Kansas, for its part, has deliberately blown up its revenue system, and thus also its schools and social services infrastructure. 

Governor Brownback has led Kansas into implementing the longtime dream of conservative free market zealots—lower state taxes that will supposedly stimulate business activity, which will in turn increase  state tax revenue. (George H.W. Bush called this “voodoo economics” when he was running against Ronald Reagan.) This economic theory has never succeeded in practice. Sure enough, Kansas is no exception. Reality has stubbornly rejected the doctrine, and Kansas is a mess. Governor Brownback’s Republican allies are increasingly restless as their districts suffer.

Governor Rauner’s approach has been a bit different. He argues that his policy agenda of eroding protections for workers and weakening organized labor will produce a business boom. And he asserts that this boom will drive an increase in state revenues to replace the lost income taxes he insisted on allowing to sunset. He has steadfastly demanded that Democrats enact his anti-labor agenda before he will negotiate with them on needed new state revenues. 

It is not clear whether Governor Rauner, like Governor Brownback, intends to damage the state’s social services infrastructure or whether he regards it as a regrettable but acceptable price to pay for forcing passage of his policy agenda. In either case, at this point, ten months into the budget impasse, Illinois is damaging its systems by default much as Kansas is damaging its systems apparently on purpose.            

Last week Illinois passed stopgap funding for its universities and two- and four-year colleges and their students, and Governor Rauner signed it. So Illinois has temporarily dodged that bullet, and perhaps the agreement on this legislation is a sign of progress towards a responsible budget. 

But there is much more damage being done. In January, the United Way of Illinois (UWI) surveyed 444 social service providers throughout Illinois that rely on state funding, and nearly half of the agencies surveyed reported that they had to make cuts because of the impasse. Of those that were forced to make cuts, an overwhelming majority—85%—had to do so by scaling back on the number of clients they serve. For example, as of March, at least 3,200 homebound seniors had lost home-delivered hot meals statewide.

Service agencies have been forced to lay off many of their experienced and talented staff, perhaps never to get them back. Earlier this year, Lutheran Social Services of Illinois (LSSI)—the largest social service provider in the state—announced it would cut 750 jobs, 43% of its workforce. All 29 agencies serving sexual assault survivors in Illinois have either instituted furloughs or left unfilled positions vacant—leaving survivors throughout the state without the services that are essential for their well-being. And at least 18 Teen REACH programs—which mentor, tutor and provide a safe place for at-risk children after school—have closed. Thousands of at-risk children and their families have thus lost critical after-school programming.

Much of this is permanent damage, not easily or perhaps ever remedied by an end to the budget impasse. Once a program has been dismantled—its staff reduced, its relationships with clients deteriorated, its sites closed, its cash reserves exhausted—it is incredibly difficult, expensive, and perhaps impossible to put it back together. And this can be said more broadly of the social service delivery system in Illinois; even once full funding has been restored, the State of Illinois won’t be able to simply flip a switch and return to business as usual.

Whether or not Governor Rauner intends it, whether or not he is as ideological as Governor Brownback, the emerging reality is that much damage is already done. Soon the question of whether Governor Rauner merely assigns a very low value to vital social services programs or is actively hostile to them will be solely academic. 


Tenants’ Right to Organize in HUD-Assisted Housing Must Be Enforced

Crowd of peopleThe right to organize to improve your community is a fundamental hallmark of American life.  Yet low-income tenants who live in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-assisted properties, and the community organizers who seek to empower them, often face harassment and retaliation for attempting to organize to improve their housing.

Often working in tandem with community organizers, residents of HUD-assisted housing come together to form associations that represent the interests of all tenants in the housing development. Tenant associations play an important role in ensuring that resident voices are included in decision making made about the long-term affordability and quality of their homes.

Unfortunately, too frequently, property owners and managers do not respect tenants’ right to organize. In Texas, community organizers have been threatened with arrest for meeting with tenants on the property. In Michigan, a retaliatory fee was levied for use of the community room because lawyers and organizers sought to use it to work with tenants. In Illinois, a property manager refused to allow tenants to hold a tenant association election.

Perhaps most egregiously, in New York City, a large property management company proudly proclaims its policy of attempting to defuse tenant organizations by “discourag[ing] tenants from organizing into action groups” and ensuring that “such situations are identified early and the leaders are spoken to individually and at length.” This policy calls into serious question the management company’s compliance with, and respect for, HUD’s regulations, which provide for strong tenant participation rights. Yet, even when this blatant policy was brought to HUD’s attention, the online posting—and the property management’s ability to continue to operate in this fashion—remains unaddressed.

HUD regulations, at 24 C.F.R. part 245, recognize the importance of tenant participation in creating and maintaining good living environments. HUD requires owners and property managers to recognize tenant associations and organizing committees and to not interfere with any actions reasonably related to the creation or operation of a tenant association. The regulations specifically allow tenants to conduct protected activities, including canvassing, distributing flyers, and holding on-site tenant meetings without management interference. These protections extend to non-tenant community organizers, as well.

HUD recently published a notice that explains the procedure that HUD officials are supposed to follow when a violation of the right to organize is brought to their attention, including the imposition of sanctions when an investigation shows that tenants’ rights are being interfered with. Yet, HUD has never issued a notice of violation to an owner despite serious and widespread violations, allowing owners to violate the regulations with impunity.

While this is a longstanding issue, a recent HUD-funded program that partners lawyers with community organizers has increased awareness of violations of the right to organize and resulted in more complaints to HUD. The program provides legal and community organizing support to tenant associations to preserve, improve, and maintain their housing. Along with the National Housing Law Project, the Shriver Center has sent a letter to HUD illustrating the variety of violations throughout the country and including recommendations for how to protect the right to organize.

HUD must protect tenants’ right to organize and participate in protected tenant association activities. When owners and management threaten tenants with eviction, threaten community organizers with arrest, and deny access to on-site meeting space, these actions weaken the organizing effort at the building. Too often, when faced with retaliatory actions by management, tenants are afraid to participate because they are fearful of losing their homes. Until HUD begins to hold owners accountable, the right to organize and participate in many HUD-funded multifamily housing developments will remain elusive. 

Why Your ERISA Appeal Is So Important

In a previous blog, we discussed the steps you need to take if you have a long term disability claim through a policy provided by your employer, before you hire an attorney. This blog will piggy back on that one, focusing on why the appeal itself is so important and more, why the quality of the evidence you submit during that appeal will make or break your claim.

Under the federal regulations governing ERISA claims, and the cases that have interpreted those regulations, your appeal is the only opportunity you will have to get evidence of your disability into your claim file. (There are a few exceptions to this general rule but for purposes of most cases, the appeal is it).

While you do have a right to litigate your claim once you have exhausted your administrative remedies under the plan, you do not have the right to testify, call witnesses or present new evidence to the judge. All the judge will see, if your claim goes that far, is the evidence that was submitted during your administrative appeal. Thus, the type and quality of the evidence you submit during your appeal is crucial to a successful claim.

Each case is different but some general guidelines about the type of evidence are:

(1) Submit copies of your medical records – these will help to provide objective proof of your disabling condition;
(2) Submit a letter of support from one or more of your treating physicians – your doctor can best describe your symptoms and their impact on your ability to perform the duties of your own occupation;
(3) Submit objective measures of your condition – depending on the type of disabling condition you have - tests like Functional Capacity Evaluations, X-Rays, MRI’s Neuropsychological Examinations and Vocational Assessments also help to support your claim.

We have posted a checklist on our website of things to consider when handling you own appeal. (Click on the word "checklist" to find it.)

If your disability claim has been denied, contact Kantor & Kantor for a no-cost consultation.

We understand and we can help. (800) 446-7529

The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force Recommendations Are Important for Racial Justice Beyond the Criminal Justice System

Police carAlmost two years ago, the Shriver Center pointed to the racial injustice embedded within the criminal justice system and urged that a new understanding of implicit bias could produce reforms that would prevent deaths like that of Michael Brown in a police shooting in Ferguson. Over the past few years we have seen many grassroots movements primarily led by young black organizations draw national attention to this longstanding epidemic. Last week, the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, formed in response to the similar shooting of Laquan MacDonald, urged the City of Chicago and its police department to “acknowledge the force’s history of racial disparity and discrimination.” In its final report, the Task Force states that racism, which stems in part from our city’s long history of residential segregation, “undermines the Chicago Police Department’s relationship to the community.” The Task Force put forth thoughtful recommendations to reform the current policies and practices that have debilitated the public's trust in police in Chicago and across the country. These included recommendations to:

  • create localized Community Empowerment and Engagement Districts (CEED) that collaborate with local stakeholders to develop tailored community policing strategies;
  • implement a data driven, best-in-class Early Intervention System for the Chicago Police Department (CPD) to identify officers with problems before they become problems for the community; and
  • establish a Deputy Chief of Diversity and Inclusion for CPD.

The task force report echoes community voices that have long been clamoring for such reforms, but have not until now been heeded by policymakers. The findings and recommendations of the Task Force are a call for action not just for Chicago but also for the nation.

Reforming the racially biased and discriminatory criminal justice system is important well beyond law enforcement. Arrests and convictions also sentence people to a lifetime of disadvantages and impenetrable barriers to
housing, employment, public benefits, and voting and derail them from having a fair chance in this country. While our nation has made progress in acknowledging these collateral consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system, there is a long way to go for all of these other systems on the civil side to end blanket reliance on criminal records. Blanket bans based on criminal records are unjust even when the original criminal involvement was a legitimate conviction. They are exponentially worse when the original criminal involvement was the unjust result of a racially biased and discriminatory criminal justice system.   

The actions of law enforcement officials have an important effect on youths of color. The task force describes CPD's relationship with youths of color as “antagonistic to say the least.” By acknowledging the random but pervasive physical and verbal abuse youths in communities of color experience from police, the task force draws attention to aspects of policing that do not make headline news, but nonetheless foster a relationship of distrust between police departments and the people they serve. Many black youths do not see the police as an institution that protects them. High school students on Chicago’s South Side discuss everyday instances of harassment that are too minor to merit the involvement of a civil rights lawyer but substantial enough to illegitimatize the police force collectively as a trusted source of protection. These negative encounters infiltrate every aspect of these students’ day—on their way to school, at school, and even at home. This common experience of youths of color throughout the country leads them to feel dehumanized and singled out as criminals in every aspect of their lives. 

While racial bias has severe implications within every profession, within the police it pulls a lever that starts an assembly line leading toward involvement in the criminal justice system that transforms people of color into second-class citizens. That assembly line is lubricated by a code of silence that prevents good officers from slowing the process down, fixing it, or stopping it. It is not enough for leaders to admit that there is sanctioned racial bias and discrimination within the system, furthered by a code of silence. The department needs to create a professional environment where accountability can thrive and racial bias can be acknowledged and eliminated.

The task force report is a call to action.  Its implementation through effective and sustainable action is an important measure of the commitment of the City of Chicago and this nation to make a fair chance not just a privilege for the few, but a birthright for all. 


Life Insurance Companies Investigated for Not Paying Claims

Don't ever assume that you Life Insurance policy will pay benefits to your beneficiaries.

Why? Because so often, benefits are not paid. We know this is true because we are in the business of suing insurance companies when they fail to pay valid claims. But, most people never imagine that a valid life insurance claim won't get paid. Most of the problems we see at our firm involve insurance companies failing to pay life insurance benefits based on allegations of such things as fraud in procuring the policy, or that the policy was not properly applied for through an individual's employer. Insurance companies often make these assertions without good faith, or without having performed a full and fair investigation of the facts. And often, when we challenge the insurance benefit denial, we get benefits paid for our clients.

But, what happens when someone doesn't even know they are the beneficiary of a life insurance policy? Should the insurance company make an attempt to contact beneficiaries when they have knowledge an insured has died? Most state laws say "yes." Should insurance companies continue to collect premiums (from policies with cash value) when they know an insured has died? Common sense, and the law, say "no." Yet many insurance companies have been doing exactly what they should not be doing, and have realized mind-boggling profits by doing so. The television show, 60 minutes, ran a segment last night revealing these unfair practices. Florida Insurance Commissioner, Kevin McCarty, led the national task force investigating the industry. He explains as a result of the investigation, twenty five of the nation's biggest life insurance companies agreed to pay more than 7 and a half billion dollars in back death benefits. For more information on the 60 minutes piece, click here:

You may be able to check if you are owed any money by an insurance company (or other entity) by clicking here:

If, on the other hand, you have already made a claim for life insurance benefits from MetLife, Prudential, Anthem Life, Transamerica, or any other life insurance company, and your claim is being delayed or denied, call us. We can probably help. Consultations are absolutely free, and we handle matters on a contingency basis everywhere in the state of California and even neighboring states. So, no recovery, no fee. (877) 783-8686