 |
|
Scroll down to read full e-newsletter or click on a specific article:
|
|
 |
|
 |
From its beginnings in 1974, Bet Tzedek has worked for justice for Holocaust survivors. We’d like to honor the work of our Holocaust Reparations Advocate, Mark Rothman, and a summer law clerk, Rachel Forde, for their efforts on behalf of Sam Gotlieb. This type of collaboration between paid staff and volunteers is a hallmark of Bet Tzedek’s services, and allows us to use donations in the most efficient manner possible. Our client, Sam Gotlieb, applied for a German pension for his work in the Radom ghetto from 1941-1942. The pension authority denied his initial application, asserting that the ghetto did not exist during the period claimed, and that "his labor did not qualify" under the criteria of the relevant law (called ZRBG). Summer law clerk Rachel Forde, under the supervision of Holocaust Services Advocate Mark Rothman, submitted an appeal on several grounds: we argued for a more generous interpretation of the law in question; we submitted factual evidence about the client's labor; and, we provided historical research proving Radom's existence as a ghetto. In November, the pension authority reversed its denial. Mr. Gotlieb received a monthly pension, a retroactive payment for the period from 1997 to the present, and interest for the time since his application was complete. For the rest of his life, Mr. Gotlieb will receive monthly pension payments of $730, and he will soon receive a one-time payment of around $65,000 for the retroactive benefits. For the other survivors, we launched a lobbying campaign. We prepared letters to the German Ministers of Justice and Health, detailing abuses of the ZRBG law. We found powerful allies in our local United States Representatives. Representative Henry Waxman agreed to send his own letter to the same German Ministers, and further demonstrated his support for our campaign by gathering the signatures of Representatives Howard L. Berman, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, and Diane E. Watson. Representative Waxman forwarded the same letter to the German Ambassador. We pursued press coverage of our clients’ devastating experiences under ZRBG. Articles appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Journal, and—by virtue of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency—in newspapers throughout North America. A PDF copy of the article from The Jewish Journal is available by clicking here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12829 As a result of this pressure, the German government launched an investigation of ZRBG. We have continued to pursue justice by petitioning 17 members of the German Parliament who had previously raised nearly identical concerns about ZRBG to re-visit the law and its application. At this time, the issue continues to be debated in various agencies of the German government. Happily for our clients, we have experienced further success in the appeals process, garnering two other settlements in the first week of December.
|
 |
Our staff works tirelessly to ensure that our clients receive the best outcome possible. Our Family Caregiver Project benefits from the combined efforts of attorney Janet Morris and paralegal Kim Williams. In one amazing case, Kim made sure that a blind, disabled woman could remain in her home with her son. Our client, Mrs. Alvarez (not her real name), is 63 years old. She is severely disabled from the complications of diabetes. She has had both legs amputated, is blind and on kidney dialysis due to the disease. She was living in a nursing home and was attacked and beaten by another resident. The nursing home said they could not guarantee her safety after the attack, so her son moved her into his one-bedroom guesthouse and has been caring for her there since April 2004. Her son was unable to continue working because she needed constant care. Although Mrs. Alvarez has lived in the United States since 1968, she worked as a housewife raising seven children and never contributed to Social Security. Her husband left her and never paid child support. She also applied for citizenship but was unable to proceed because of her acute illness. When her son contacted our office, they were living in his house with no income. Mrs. Alvarez requested a power of attorney for healthcare. She was Spanish speaking and unable to communicate with her doctors and wanted to appoint her son as her decision maker. We helped them with that request and after reviewing the case, we realized they would be eligible for additional public benefits. We suggested they apply for the Cash Assistance for Immigrant program (CAPI) and In Home Supportive Services (IHSS), which provides home attendant care. We also suggested they apply for the Medi-Cal Nursing Home Waiver program. Mrs. Alvarez applied for IHSS but was denied because she had no income. The program requires that she must have some monthly income to be eligible. Although her sons give her a little money each month, IHSS refused to consider it under their official definition of income. CAPI approved her application, but coded her benefits incorrectly as “board and care.” Kim called IHSS and explained that our client now receives monthly income through CAPI and again requested IHSS benefits. IHSS refused, stating that the program is for those living in their own home and, according to CAPI’s code, Mrs. Alvarez was residing in a board-and-care facility. Although the IHSS worker personally met with Mrs. Alvarez in her home and knew she wasn’t living in board and care, the worker refused to provide IHSS services until CAPI changed their benefits code. The IHSS worker also refused to call CAPI to clarify the situation. Kim worked with CAPI to change the benefits code from “board and care” to “living at home.” She then submitted the confirming letter to IHSS and they awarded attendant care. Once IHSS was approved, Mrs. Alvarez became eligible for the Medi-Cal Waiver program. Through these combined programs, Mrs. Alvarez now receives 303 hours of attendant care per month. Her son was also given a payment of $13,625 for attendant care services provided to his mother from May 2004 to November 2004. He now has a current monthly income of $2,272 paid to him from Medi-Cal so he may care for Mrs. Alvarez in his home and keep her out of a nursing home.
|
 |
Our client, Mr. Apfel, is a healthy 95-year-old widower with no children. In November 2001, his tenant threatened him and he no longer felt safe in his own home. (The home has several rental units behind it.) A woman who recently befriended him offered to give him room and board in exchange for his Social Security check. He moved into the woman's home and, upon her recommendation, transferred his home into a trust of which she was the trustee and beneficiary. Mr. Apfel experienced difficulties with her and moved out of her home. He asked her to transfer his house out of the trust and back to him and she refused to sign. The woman owned an auto repair shop and moved an employee and his family into Mr. Apfel's home. Mr. Apfel asked her to move her employee out of his home. She refused. He sought the assistance of Bet Tzedek. We helped him revoke the trust and sent the revocation to her, the trustee, along with a request to sign a deed transferring Mr. Apfel's home out of the trust and back into his name. She again refused to comply. We also helped him remove the trespassers from his home. We represented Mr. Apfel in court and petitioned for an order requiring the woman to transfer the house back into Mr. Apfel's name. After months of delay and numerous appearances by a dedicated volunteer attorney, the judge ordered that the house be transferred to our client. The house was returned to Mr. Apfel. Mr. Apfel's house is his only asset and he was greatly relieved to regain control of his property. Our client was awarded a judgment of $632,500 in double damages for elder abuse. Together, Bet Tzedek and volunteer attorneys Blake Rummel from Weinstock, Manion, Reisman, Shore and Neumann and Robert Swerdlow from O'Melveny & Myers were awarded attorney fees in the amount of $76,483. The good news is that Mr. Apfel once again lives in his own home without fear.
|
 |
Bet Tzedek operates several unique projects, including the Nursing Home Advocacy Project. In all of these projects, we rely upon the expertise and caring of pro bono attorneys. In this case, Staff Attorney Jody Spiegel and volunteer counsel fought and won against one of the largest nursing facilities in the state. The Yeatts case involved a quadriplegic who, after a brief hospital stay, was refused re-admittance to a nursing home. This clearly violated federal and state laws. Our client had lived in the nursing facility for three years, considered it his home, and wanted to remain there because it was close to family and friends who visited him on a regular basis. As a result of the nursing home's illegal conduct, our client was forced to spend 129 days away from his home, family and friends, and was abandoned in facilities that were inappropriate to his condition and ill equipped to meet his medical needs. The nursing home refused to readmit our client until after Bet Tzedek filed a lawsuit against it for violation of patients' rights, unfair business practices, negligence, dependent adult abuse and willful misconduct. Thereafter, Bet Tzedek and its volunteer counsel--Tony Parascandola, a sole practitioner, and attorneys from Loeb & Loeb under the direction of partner Adam Streisand--successfully defended an onslaught of motions by the nursing home and its team of attorneys, including motions to transfer venue, compel arbitration, strike punitive damages, and enforce settlement and entry of judgment. Additional attorneys at Loeb & Loeb who worked on the case include: associates Seth Krasilovsky, Gabrielle Vidal, Rachel Shujman and Tiffany Zwicker . With an impending trial date, several hundred thousand dollars in legal bills, and the prospect of a large punitive damage award against it, the nursing home finally came to the bargaining table with a substantial settlement offer that our client accepted.
|
 |
Bet Tzedek is fortunate to be part of a legal services community in Los Angeles that includes some of the finest attorneys and organizations in the nation. In the “Landlord Solutions” case, Elissa Barrett, Director of the Sydney M. Irmas Housing Conditions Project, joined forces with other legal services providers to fight for tenants citywide. The Los Angeles Times reported on the case on March 6, 2004. To read the article, click here: Court Upholds Renter Law. Many landlords who own apartments that fall under the City of Los Angeles’ Rent Stabilization Ordinance look for means to evict tenants. When new tenants occupy the apartment, a market-rate rent can be charged. To achieve this end, landlords were creating long, detailed lists of new regulations and then evicting tenants whenever they violated any provision. One landlord created an 18-page document full of restrictions on tenants, including how often they could flush toilets! In response, the City of Los Angeles created an ordinance that effectively prohibits the practice. Bet Tzedek became involved in the legal fight to uphold the ordinance. In early March, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge upheld the ordinance, which states that tenants cannot be evicted if they fail to comply with regulations that are not included in their original lease agreement and that they never consented to in writing. "The rent control provision at issue here provides that a landlord may not evict a tenant for violating a change in the terms of tenancy unless the change is in writing and signed by both parties," Judge Malcolm Mackey wrote. The limitation is consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1976 case. The Los Angeles Times article concludes: “Bet Tzedek Legal Services, an intervenor in the case, presented the ‘perspective of some actual tenants ... whose tenancies would be in danger if they didn't have the amendment out there to protect them,’ said Elissa Barrett of Bet Tzedek. Barrett said the amendment offers protection to tenants, while taking away nothing from the rights of landlords who have legitimate causes for eviction.”
|
 |
Law students are an important part of the team at Bet Tzedek. In this case, Loyola Law School student Sharona Kianmahd worked with Staff Attorney Cesar Noriega to gain justice for Lidia Lopez. Mrs. Lopez is a single mom who has lived in her apartment for 28 years. She suffered cervical cancer, and after treatment, the cancer is in remission. Her 20-year-old daughter, Julie, attends Los Angeles City College. Mrs. Lopez works in a school cafeteria for only 3 hours per week and is barely able to afford her one-bedroom unit by paying $495 monthly. Mrs. Lopez had always paid rent on the 15th of each month. The landlords served her a written notice that her rent was now due on the first and that they would prorate it. This caused confusion and even though Mrs. Lopez paid her rent, the lawsuit claimed that she had only paid for one-half of the month. A volunteer from BT tried the case. Mrs. Lopez lost her case. Certified Law Student Sharona Kianmahd prepared a hardship petition and argued the case. In a hardship petition, a tenant who loses an eviction case can request that tenancy be restored if the eviction results in “hardship." These "hardship" motions are rarely granted. In fact, no one in the courtroom when Sharona argued the case could remember a hardship petition being granted. Despite the long odds, Sharona’s preparation paid off, as the Commissioner restored Lidia’s tenancy. Lidia and Julie continue to live in their affordable housing. Lidia’s neighbor, Carmen Dircio, also benefited from Sharona's work. Carmen was being evicted for non-payment of $8.20! After the hardship motion, the landlord's attorney decided to dismiss Mrs. Dircio's case.
|
 |
In addition to our work on behalf of individual clients, Bet Tzedek uses impact litigation to make a dramatic difference in the lives of thousands of people. As detailed in a Los Angeles Times article on January 21, 2004, the Wet Seal case set a precedent that hopefully will improve the garment industry throughout California. To read the entire article in pdf format, click here: Wet Seal Set to Settle Wage Claim.
The Wet Seal case involved four workers -- Rosalba Garcia, Adriana Maria Candelario, Juventina Ochoa and Andrea Beltran -- who worked about 68 hours a week for several years for a sewing contractor without ever being paid more than $4 an hour. The state minimum hourly wage currently is $6.75. Wet Seal hired the sewing contractor to make its items. The claim named sewing contractor D.T. Sewing, earlier called Tommy Sewing, and manufacturer Rad Clothing Inc., both of Los Angeles, along with Wet Seal. The California labor commissioner ruled in the workers' favor in December 2002, awarding them back pay and damages of $240,000. Wet Seal was deemed liable for almost $90,000 of that amount. D.T. Sewing and Rad Clothing both shut down without paying. Wet Seal appealed its portion of the decision, forcing the matter to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Before the court ruled, Wet Seal agreed to pay a settlement in the amount of $90,000 to the four garment workers. The settlement was the first time a retailer agreed to pay workers under a state law that broadens the ability of garment industry employees to file claims for alleged violations of wage and hour laws. "We're hopeful that this is going to send a message to other companies that they're liable under the statute and that they, like Wet Seal, should think proactively about how to prevent these minimum-wage and overtime violations from occurring in the factories they use," said Cassie Stubbs, the Bet Tzedek attorney who worked on the case.
|
 |
Bet Tzedek is proud to be the home of many staff attorneys who have spent over a decade working in The House of Justice. Deborah Baldwin, Public Benefits Director, began at Bet Tzedek in 1986. The following case illustrates the value of persistence. The case began in 1996, when the client was 34 years old. He suffered an on-the-job injury in which he slipped backward onto the floor and injured his lower spine. The resulting pain was so great he was unable to return to work. He applied for SSI disability, and was denied. The client spent a good part of the hearing stretched out on the floor because of the pain. Bet Tzedek appealed the case, first to the Appeals Council and then to U.S. District Court. In 2001, the court remanded the case for a new hearing. Due to the passage of time, it took a while to find the client. When Bet Tzedek finally tracked him down, he was so fed up with the system he didn't want to pursue his claim. Baldwin finally convinced him to go forward, and a new hearing was held last December. Fortunately, a different judge heard the case. In the summer of 2004, eight years after the original claim was filed, the new judge awarded retroactive benefits dating to June of 1996! Bet Tzedek represents clients in many types of cases, including public benefits cases. Often, we are the last hope for our clients. Successes in these cases literally can make the difference between a life of dignity and a life spent in an institution. In this case, Bet Tzedek’s commitment to pursuing every avenue resulted in a resounding victory for our client. Bet Tzedek represented a 38-year-old woman who suffers from severe, chronic schizophrenia. Social Security originally denied her application for SSI/disability benefits because of insufficient evidence of her disability. After meeting with her, it was clear to us that she was disabled and that the severity of her disability prevented her from obtaining the medical care she needed and from being cooperative with Social Security staff and evaluators. Bet Tzedek successfully represented her at her appeal in 2003. The administrative law judge awarded benefits and remanded the case back to the local office for calculation of ongoing and retroactive benefits. However, on account of her disability, our client is a very poor historian. She told the local office that she had been married until only recently. Social Security therefore denied her most of the retroactive benefits she was due on the ground that someone else must have been supporting her. Working with the bits of information gleaned from our various meetings with client during her moments of lucidity, Bet Tzedek obtained copies of her divorce proceedings and police records showing that the client was a victim of domestic abuse and divorced her husband several years earlier. On appeal, an administrative law judge reviewed our evidence and directed the local office to award all outstanding retroactive benefits. This amounted to approximately $6,500 for our client. |
| To read this e-newsletter in its entirety, please click here. | |
Light up the holiday season with a meaningful gift in honor of a friend, colleague or loved one! Make a tax-deductible online contribution to Bet Tzedek, and we will send a Hanukkah e-card customized with your own personal greeting.