Author: JGL Law

Profile picture of JGL Law
Website
https://www.jgllaw.com

Posts by JGL Law

In an article published in The Washington Post on February 27, 2025, Jay Holland was quoted about the move to dismiss a federal civil rights case against the Maryland State Police (MSP). The dismissal was filed by the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland at the request of the Justice Department. No reason was provided for the dismissal, nor was there an explanation of how Maryland should proceed.

The case at the heart of the dismissal accused the MSP of discriminating against Black and female trooper applicants. The matter was resolved months ago, when the state entered into a consent decree with the Justice Department, agreeing to a $2.75 million settlement and a host of changes. It’s unclear what will happen to the payments or other requirements of the consent decree now that federal prosecutors have moved to end the case.

The alleged discriminatory practices led a group of state troopers to file their own lawsuit against the MSP in U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit accuses the agency of denying promotions for officers of color, imposing harsher penalties on them compared with White officers and allowing a work environment that subjected them to racist comments. JGL principal Jay Holland represents the police officers in this case, which is ongoing. Holland weighed in on the dismissal of the federal civil rights case.

“It will not affect our case one iota. Whether this new administration has any interest in enforcing our country’s civil rights laws does not affect our interest in doing so for the state troopers who have been victims of illegal discrimination. We will continue to fight for the equal rights of our state troopers.”

Read the full article “Trump administration orders dismissal of Md. state police civil rights case.” (PDF)

JGL principal Veronica Nannis will present on a panel at the D.C. Bar’s March 18, 2025, remote program “Could My Client Be a Whistleblower? How to Identify Potential Whistleblower Clients and What to Do Next.” JGL associate Gia Grimm will moderate the event.

The event will be hosted by the bar association’s Labor & Employment Steering Committee. JGL principal Erika Jacobsen White is a member of the committee and helped develop the program.

During the event, panelists will share their expertise on identifying potential whistleblower clients and the subsequent steps to take. The program is designed to equip employment attorneys with the knowledge and tools needed to recognize whistleblower claims and navigate the complexities of such cases. Speakers will also provide practical guidance on key indicators that your employment client may have a whistleblower claim, the legal framework and protections available to whistleblowers, best practices for advising and representing whistleblower clients, and strategies for effectively litigating whistleblower cases. Attendees will gain valuable insights into the nuances of whistleblower law and learn how to advocate for their clients effectively.

Learn more and register for the remote program.

In Houser v. Houser, 262 Md. App. 473 (2024), the Appellate Court of Maryland upheld a circuit court ruling that rejected a child support waiver agreement between two parents.

The court affirmed that child support is a legal obligation upon a parent and one that cannot be waived by agreement of the parties, reinforcing Maryland’s public policy position in favor of assuring financial support for children by their parents. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and will hear arguments on March 3, 2025. The case has garnered significant attention, as its outcome could have a meaningful impact on the legal landscape surrounding parental autonomy in child support agreements.

Key Issues in Houser v. Houser

At the heart of Houser v. Houser is the question of whether parents have the constitutional right to agree that no child support will be paid, even when both parents are financially capable of providing for the child. The circuit court refused to accept such an agreement and instead applied Maryland’s statutory child support guidelines, despite the parents’ mutual agreement to the contrary.

While adversarial in designation, the parties were aligned in their appellate positions and argued, among many arguments, that their agreement was in the best interests of their child and that the court’s refusal to honor it violated their fundamental rights under the United States Supreme Court opinion of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). The Appellate Court rejected this argument, distinguishing Troxel as addressing physical custody rights as opposed to parental agreements regarding financial obligations to their children.

Why a Further Appeal Matters

A Maryland Supreme Court decision on this matter could have far-reaching implications for family law. Here’s why:

1. Clarification of Parental Autonomy vs. State Interest

This case presents an opportunity for the Maryland high court to delineate the boundaries between a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions for their child and the state’s role in ensuring financial support for children. While prior cases establish that parents cannot waive child support obligations, the parents in Houser argue that their financial arrangement serves the best interests of their child. A ruling from the Supreme Court of Maryland offers an opportunity to provide further clarification as to whether or not Maryland courts may honor such agreements.

2. Potential Shift in Child Support Law

Maryland law currently mandates that courts use child support guidelines unless applying them would be “unjust or inappropriate.” However, courts rarely deviate from these guidelines unless exceptional circumstances exist. If the Supreme Court of Maryland rules in favor of the parents in Houser, the door could open for parties and litigators alike to enjoy more flexibility regarding child support arrangements, particularly in high-income cases where the guidelines may be seen as excessive or unnecessary.

3. Addressing Public Policy Concerns

The Appellate Court of Maryland emphasized a strong public policy position that a child’s right to receive support cannot be waived by a parent. While critics argue that rigid application of child support guidelines may not always reflect the nuanced realities of co-parenting, the state (in this instance, the court) is duty bound to protect the best interests of minor child by way of the State’s role as parens patriae. Therefore, an opportunity, such as this matter, to balance such significant interests is rare.

4. Impact on Future Custody and Support Agreements

Of course, the significance of this matter is only realized against the backdrop of the countless cases that will follow wherein parents seek to negotiate child support terms. Any seasoned practitioner of Maryland family law understands that a downward deviation of child support is not a straightforward proposition, much less a deviation to zero. Therefore, an appellate decision that will determine the extent of parental authority regarding child support is notable. If the Supreme Court of Maryland upholds the ruling, it will reinforce the principle that child support is an obligation with very little room for negotiation, if any, potentially deterring parents from attempting similar agreements in the future. If it reverses, then there may be a shift toward greater judicial deference to parental decision-making in financial matters, impacting custody settlements and child support agreements statewide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s forthcoming review of Houser v. Houser is poised to be a notable decision in family law. Whether it reaffirms the strict application of child support guidelines or allows for some degree of parental discretion, the ruling will shape the legal landscape for years to come. Like me, family law practitioners and parents with child support disputes should closely follow this case, as its resolution could redefine how Maryland courts balance parental rights with the state’s interest in child support.

In an article published on February 24, 2025, by The Washington Post JGL Principal Drew LaFramboise was quoted about the class action lawsuit against the Psychiatric Institute of Washington, which alleges widespread mistreatment of patients at the hospital. LaFramboise and JGL Principal Veronica Nannis are co-counsel for the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, a patient alleges that the institution prioritizes profits over patient care, systematically committing patients when not medically necessary to maximize insurance payments. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the patient and certification of a class of thousands of patients involuntarily hospitalized at the facility in the decade since it was acquired by corporate hospital giant Universal Health Services.

“Behind this is a massive corporate enterprise that is continuing to expand rapidly and has made no bones about the fact that they are interested in nothing more than expansion and increasing occupancy in these facilities,” said LaFramboise.

Read the full article “D.C. psych hospital committed patients to boost profits, lawsuit says.” (PDF)


Additional press coverage is available:

Psychiatric hospital in DC accused of neglect, abuse – WUSA Channel 9

Lawsuit: Psych Hospital Faked Records to Boost Profits – Newser

In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, JGL family law attorneys Christopher Castellano and David Bulitt discuss the key considerations and potential implications associated with selling your home in connection with a divorce.

[00:00:00] David Bulitt: Welcome to JGL Law for You. JGL Law for You is a podcast by lawyers, but not for lawyers. Only on JGL Law for You do we discuss a wide array of topics to help you navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events, and how they may affect you, your family, or your business.

[00:00:20] Today we’re talking real estate and divorce. Uh, complicated topics that sometimes co-mingle, and to help us discuss what to do, how to do it, what not to do, is a principal at Joseph Greenwald and Laake, Christopher Castellano, who for over a decade has represented clients in Maryland domestic cases, including custody, divorce, and modification actions.

Chris, welcome aboard, thanks for coming back, and this is a great discussion to have. Particularly this time of year, because, you know, we’re starting to approach the spring when houses go on the market, when some people are looking to buy houses or move to other homes for school [00:01:00] reasons or otherwise. And as you and I know, January and February are busy, busy times for people who are in unhappy relationships. So those two worlds tend to collide, right?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, absolutely. This time of the year is one of the hottest because you’ve got a lot of those questions swirling of, you know, what should I do for this upcoming year?

David Bulitt: Let’s start and work from the top down a little bit. What are the overall concerns, the factors, the things that you want to keep in mind? Either those that are real, dollars and cents wise, or the more intangible emotional type factors?

Christopher Castellano: Right. We’re talking just about the house. When you’re dealing with a house in the context of dissolving your marriage, there’s quite a few things to take into account. You know, first you have to understand, which is why it’s always good to talk to an experienced lawyer, but you have to understand the legal parameters within which you’re working, right?

And so, a house, just like your car, just like your retirement, is an asset, and the court’s going to treat it as such. And as a result, you know, we have to look at a few key questions:

  • who owns the house
  • who’s on the title
  • whether either party has contributed to the house

If we have a house that’s at least partly or entirely premarital, we also need to consider whether either person has contributed to the mortgage, maintenance, or upkeep. There’s a lot of different factors that go into the question of ownership of the house and how the court may treat the ownership of the house. That’s one of the first core questions that we look at.

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about that. Let’s come back to the emotional part, which is often the more difficult thing to deal with. Let’s talk about the legal aspect, at least in terms of how Maryland looks at a marital home.

Christopher Castellano: Sure. If you’ve got a home that you purchased during your marriage with your spouse, it’s going to be titled tenants by the entirety, and essentially it’s owned by both of you equally. The court’s going to treat it as such. We’re going to divide it 50/50, and we’re going to sell the house.

[00:03:00] David Bulitt: When you say 50/50 the house, what does that mean? That means that if the house gets sold that the two people would split the proceeds equally?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, that’s right. And we’re going to look at proceeds as essentially the net proceeds of the house. So, we’re going to deal with the mortgage, we’re going to pay that off, we’re going to deal with closing costs, we’re going to deal with attorney’s fees related to the sale of the house, and any taxes that may be necessary. And the net proceeds will get divided 50/50. Now, that could be by way of an agreement, or that could be by way of a court order.

David Bulitt: Okay, and let’s go back to the titling piece, because folks sometimes do things differently. I mean, most of us think we buy a house together, we’re both getting on the deed, we’re both getting on the mortgage, but that isn’t necessarily the case in certain circumstances, right?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, some people may find it beneficial to have it titled one way or the other. For instance, one spouse, they’re on the title just completely by themselves. And for all intents and purposes, that may be a sensible decision at the time, right? But of course, that becomes a complicated discussion if now we’re on the other end of the equation and we’re dissolving the marriage.

David Bulitt: Okay. And one of the reasons that folks may, who are married, may buy a piece of property or getting ready to get married, whatever it might be, and have it titled jointly or titled separately, or the mortgage be where there’s only one party on there, may have something to do with, what, with maybe the credit score of one of the two potential buyers or something like that?

Christopher Castellano: Well, sure. I mean, it may be credit score, in this area we’ve got a lot of military, could be various different benefits for different types of loans. There’s a lot of factors that go into how the house is titled and how the deed of trust or your mortgage are structured. But ultimately what the court’s going to look at is that marital interest. And that’s what I want to focus on next, which is, okay, we’ve identified the title, we’ve identified who is essentially living in the home, but how do we look at the value of the house, and what portion of that is marital?

David Bulitt: Let me just ask you a clarifying question for a second. Doesn’t that mean that it’s marital property as a matter of law?

Christopher Castellano: If it is titled jointly, it is considered under the statute marital property, yes.

David Bulitt: So how do you deal with situations where one person contributed more?

Christopher Castellano: The premarital or non-marital contribution to the purchase of a house is always somewhat of a sticky question. I’ve interacted with judges who have come out in different ways. But generally speaking, that type of contribution is often viewed as a gift to the marriage unless there is an agreement stating otherwise.

[00:06:00]

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, so what we’re doing next is figuring out how to value that interest, right? We touched on it a little bit before. You’re going to look at the market value of the house, and you’re going to subtract out the mortgage, any lines of credit, anything that’s attached to the house, right? And that gives you your base level equity in the property.

But then you have to take it a step further. You’ve got to ask: are there any agreements in place? Is there a prenup? Is there some understanding between the parties — even informal — that would affect how that equity is divided?

David Bulitt: So, people can come to an agreement on value themselves, or they can get an appraisal.

Christopher Castellano: That’s right. Ideally, people come to an agreement. You can use Zillow, Redfin, Realtor — all these tools — to get a rough estimate. But if there’s disagreement, then you bring in a professional appraiser. And sometimes you even have dueling appraisals, right? One side hires one, the other side hires another, and then you’re arguing over which one is more credible.

David Bulitt: Which of course adds cost.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. And that’s why, again, going back to practicality, if you can agree on a number that’s within reason, you’re saving yourself time, money, and stress.

[00:08:00]

David Bulitt: So now we’re in a situation where there’s no agreement. Trial is coming. What’s the court going to do?

Christopher Castellano: The court is going to order the house sold. That’s the baseline. And like we talked about earlier, you’re not controlling that process anymore. A trustee is going to be appointed. That trustee is going to make decisions about the house — when it’s listed, what repairs are done, how it’s marketed.

And importantly, you’re going to be paying for that. You’re paying trustee fees, you’re paying real estate commissions, and all of that is coming out of the equity.

David Bulitt: So instead of splitting, say, $200,000, you might be splitting $150,000.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. And that’s why, from a strategic standpoint, we use that as leverage. It’s not a threat — it’s just reality. If you don’t come to an agreement, this is what’s going to happen.

David Bulitt: And most people don’t want to give up that money.

Christopher Castellano: Correct.

[00:10:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s shift to when there are kids involved.

Christopher Castellano: This is where things get a lot more complicated, because now you’re not just dealing with money — you’re dealing with stability for the children.

Maryland allows for what’s called use and possession. That means the court can allow one parent, usually the primary custodian, to remain in the home for up to three years.

David Bulitt: And during that time, the house isn’t sold.

Christopher Castellano: Correct. The house stays in place. The kids stay there, and one parent stays with them. It’s meant to provide continuity — keep the kids in the same school, the same neighborhood, the same environment.

David Bulitt: And after that period?

Christopher Castellano: Then the house is typically sold unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

[00:12:00]

David Bulitt: What about situations where parents are more cooperative?

Christopher Castellano: If people are cooperative, there’s a lot more flexibility. They can come up with arrangements that extend beyond what the court would typically order. For instance, they may agree to keep the house longer than three years, or come up with creative arrangements like nesting — where the kids stay in the home and the parents rotate in and out.

David Bulitt: And that requires a high level of cooperation.

Christopher Castellano: Very high. That’s not something you see in contentious cases, but it can work in the right situation.

[00:14:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about contributions again. If one spouse has been paying everything — mortgage, utilities, maintenance — for a period of time, how does that factor in?

Christopher Castellano: That’s often a point of negotiation. One side may say, “I’ve been carrying the house for two or three years, I should get a greater share of the equity.” And the other side may push back and say, “Well, you lived there, you benefited from it.”

And so, you get into a negotiation about what’s fair. Maybe it’s not 50/50 anymore. Maybe it’s 55/45, maybe it’s something else. It depends on the facts of the case.

David Bulitt: And if you can’t agree?

Christopher Castellano: Then you make the argument to the court, and the court decides. But there’s no guarantee how the court is going to rule on that.

[00:16:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about agreements — prenups, postnups.

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, absolutely. You can absolutely have an agreement that says, “If we divorce, this is what happens with the house.” And that can cover everything from who gets the house to how proceeds are divided.

David Bulitt: And those are enforceable?

Christopher Castellano: Generally, yes, as long as they’re properly executed. That means:

  • both parties had the opportunity to review
  • there wasn’t coercion
  • it’s not unconscionable

David Bulitt: And it removes a lot of the uncertainty.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. It takes what could be a very contentious issue and turns it into something straightforward.

[00:18:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about timing. What’s the benefit of selling the house before the divorce is finalized?

Christopher Castellano: The biggest benefit is liquidity. The house is often the largest asset, and when you sell it, you create a pool of funds that can be used to resolve the rest of the case.

Instead of arguing about, “Who gets what?” in a vacuum, you have actual dollars that can be allocated.

David Bulitt: It gives you flexibility.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. It allows for what we call “horse trading.” You can offset assets — maybe one person takes more of a retirement account, the other takes more cash. Without liquidity, that becomes much harder.

[00:20:00]

David Bulitt: And what if the house is underwater?

Christopher Castellano: That’s a different situation entirely. If you owe more than the house is worth, then you’re dealing with potential short sales, potential losses, and that has to be factored into the overall division of assets.

But again, that’s why it’s so important to understand the numbers early.

[00:22:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s wrap with this. What should someone do before they list their home?

Christopher Castellano: First, talk to an experienced family law attorney. That’s the starting point.

From there:

  • take inventory of all assets
  • understand your financial picture
  • determine the value of the home
  • decide on a strategy — sell, buyout, or hold

And timing is key. The market matters. If you time it correctly, you can maximize value. If you don’t, you could lose a significant amount of equity.

[00:24:00]

David Bulitt: Chris, this has been a really helpful discussion. It’s a complicated topic, and I think you’ve made it much more accessible.

If people want to get in touch with you, what’s the best way?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, they can call me directly at 240-399-7900, or they can visit JGLLaw.com. My contact information is there, and I’d be happy to speak with anyone about their situation.

David Bulitt: Thanks so much for joining us. Folks, thanks for listening. If you found this helpful, please subscribe. I’m David Bulitt, and this is JGL Law for You.

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Paul Riekhof discusses important estate planning considerations when going through a divorce.

Riekhof explains that people in the process of getting a divorce or who have just become divorced need to address five main elements related to their estate plans: their last will and testaments or revocable trusts, financial powers of attorney, health care powers of attorney and medical directives, life insurance and retirement plan beneficiary designations, and jointly owned assets.

Riekhof explains that divorce, estate and trust laws differ substantially between states. More than 40 states have laws that automatically revoke provisions of pre-divorce estate planning documents upon divorce. However, only 26 states have laws regarding whether a divorce produces an automatic effect on predivorce beneficiary designations. To ensure that your assets pass according to your wishes, it’s important to quickly change all estate planning documents and beneficiary designations upon divorce, Riekhof writes.

Planning for children and other beneficiaries is also an important part of divorce estate planning, Riekhof says, and it’s especially critical if minor children are involved. That includes determining who will manage the assets, who will be involved, and when the assets will be turned over to the children.

Divorces are stressful, and many people don’t consider estate planning when going through a divorce proceeding. If done correctly, Riekhof concludes, estate planning doesn’t have to add to that stress. He further states that taking steps to change the five important elements of an estate plan is a crucial part of fully severing the legal relationship with and avoiding unintentional benefits to a former spouse.

Read the full article “The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce” on the Law.com website (subscription required).

CBS Mornings interviewed Michal Shinnar on February 18, 2025, about the firing of federal employees. The news segment highlighted a former federal employee hired by the FAA in December who was fired on February 14.

The federal worker said she received an email blaming the termination on her performance; however, she never received any negative feedback about the work she was doing. She held the position for less than one year and, therefore, had not yet received civil service protection at the time of her termination.

Shinnar told CBS Mornings that the termination appears to be “a purely false stated reason.” She notes Trump’s team has been citing performance in firing because by law probationary federal workers can only be removed for performance or misconduct. “This situation is ripe for class action lawsuits,” said Shinnar.

Watch the interview to learn more.

Our highways, city and rural streets have never been more dangerous. Since the pandemic, driving behavior has changed across the United States as we are plagued with distracted driving, speeding, and a decrease in traffic enforcement.

On February 12, 2025, David Rouzer, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, released opening remarks titled “America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety” from a hearing about the Subcommittee’s efforts to improve highway safety through policy and program reviews within the Department of Transportation. Summarized below are the most important pieces of information from the hearing.

Driver behavior has changed considerably since the pandemic

The significant increase in traffic fatalities since the onset of the pandemic appears largely related to increased risks being taken by drivers. In an October 2021 report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that “after the declaration of the public health emergency in March 2020, driving patterns and behaviors in the United States changed significantly. Of the drivers who remained on the roads, some engaged in riskier behavior, including speeding, failure to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that across the U.S.:

  • Nearly 41,000 people died in motor vehicle related crashes in 2023, down 3.6 percent from 2022, but overall fatalities were still up compared to the last decade.
  • After pandemic-era closures began in March of 2020, driving trips dropped by 60 percent and speeding risks increased by 64 percent.
  • The risks increased as traffic enforcement declined after police officers held back from “nonessential” contact.
  • In 2021, traffic fatalities jumped over 10 percent, the highest number since 2005 and the largest increase since 1975.
  • In 2022, NHTSA found that 40 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural areas on non-interstate roads, despite only 20 percent of the population living in rural areas.

In addition, almost 50 percent of Americans say that people in their area drive somewhat less safely or a lot less safely than before the pandemic. Seventy-eight percent of Americans also think that cellphone use is a major problem in their area, while 63 percent think speeding and aggressive driving are substantial issues. (Source: Pew Research Center).

What’s in the Committee’s Plan?

  • Provide states and local governments flexibility to implement programs in our rural communities.
  • Encourage states to develop Highway Safety Improvement Programs
  • Adapt pavement and guardrail standards to new vehicle technology such as electric vehicles which weigh more than traditional vehicles.
  • Address work zone safety which puts roadside workers at greater risk of injury or death. According to the Associated General Contractors of America, 64 percent of contractors reported a motor vehicle had crashed into their work zone since 2020.

Three Key Takeaways

  • Post-pandemic driving levels are now back up to the pre-pandemic levels and with federal employees returning to work, the numbers will be higher.
  • The new normal of post-pandemic driving habits put people at risk of severe injuries and death.
  • Put down your cell phones and pay attention to the road.

What to Do After an Accident

If you or a loved one is in an auto accident, contact an experienced Personal Injury attorney. At Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, we serve people in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia.

The Daily Record and the Maryland State Bar Association named Lindsay Parvis and Celeste Cunningham to the 2025 Leaders in Law.

The award honors Maryland’s legal leaders who have shown tremendous dedication to the legal profession and selfless, tireless commitment to the community. This award pays tribute to the ways in which legal professionals are serving businesses, clients and individuals across Maryland and making communities stronger. Lindsay and Celeste will be honored at an awards celebration on April 7, 2025.

A principal with JGL, Lindsay concentrates her practice in family law and related issues. For more than 20 years she has helped individuals and families navigate some of life’s biggest challenges: divorce, custody, domestic violence, and financial matters like alimony, child support and property division.

Celeste, who manages the firm’s paralegals and the personal injury practice, has been a valued member of the staff for more than two decades.

DC’s only private psychiatric hospital has a long well-documented track record of neglect and abuse

Washington, DC–A new class action lawsuit alleges that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW), under the control and ownership of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), has engaged in a years-long pattern of patient mistreatment, in violation of federal and state law. This lawsuit was brought by a local woman, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated former patients of PIW, who experienced mistreatment after being involuntarily hospitalized at the facility. The lawsuit comes after similar findings and investigations by the Council of the District of Columbia, patient advocates DC Disability Rights, and other victims.

The lawsuit describes a systemic pattern of neglect and abuse at PIW. It alleges that PIW engages in widespread falsification of patients’ medical records and unlawful involuntary hospitalizations, fails to provide indicated and necessary treatment, is chronically and intentionally understaffed, and subjects patients to unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The class action focuses on UHS’s corporate strategy of prioritizing profits over the safety and wellbeing of patients.

“In this case, we’ve alleged that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington and their corporate leadership at Universal Health Services will stop at nothing to increase the number of patients and maximize profits and shareholder value, regardless of the impact on their patient population,” said Drew LaFramboise, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, and attorney for the plaintiff.

UHS has been subject to numerous investigations and lawsuits, including an October 28, 2024 hearing by the D.C. City Council Committee on Health focused on PIW and the District’s oversight of the facility. A 2022 investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that found that residential behavioral health providers, including UHS, “optimize per diems by filling large facilities to capacity and maximize profit by concurrently reducing the number and quality of staff in facilities.” In 2020, the United States settled a lawsuit against UHS for $122 million for their alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act. The United States’ suit alleged UHS’s failure to provide adequate staffing, training, and supervision of staff, regular use of improper restraint and seclusion, failure to discharge patients when hospitalization was no longer necessary, failure to develop and/or update treatment plans, and inadequate psychotherapy and discharge planning, as pertaining to beneficiaries of federal health insurance programs.

“We are proud to represent our client and others who may come forward in their search for accountability from the Psychiatric Institute of Washington for claims of systematic, involuntary hospitalization and other harm,” said Veronica Nannis, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake and attorney for the plaintiff.

Psychiatric Institute of Washington, the only private psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C. and is located at 4228 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Universal Health Services, Inc., the largest owner and operator of for-profit hospitals in the country, and is located in King of Prussia, PA.

To learn more about this case, click here.

In an article published on February 4, 2025, in HR.com’s HR Legal & Compliance Excellence magazine, Brian Markovitz and Deborah Jaffe explain what Trump’s labor and employment picks could mean for employees.

The attorneys discuss the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer to lead the U.S. Department of Labor, a more moderate choice than expected. The Trump administration has named Marvin Kaplan as the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and terminated its general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. As for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the president has announced he is appointing Andrea Lucas as its acting chair and is similarly expected to terminate the current general counsel.

While not all of the policy orders Trump has made are expected to last, it’s evident the new administration has a clear agenda moving forward, the attorneys wrote.

“Despite potential legal challenges ahead, with a 53-47 Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, President Trump’s nominees are expected to encounter little resistance during the confirmation process,” Markovitz and Jaffe explained, “situating the Trump administration to push forward with its expectedly pro-business agenda.”

Continue reading “EEOC, NLRB, And DOL: Who’s In Charge?” on the HR.com website.

JGL President, Paul Riekhof, announced that Christopher Castellano and Jonathan Stepanuk have been named Principals of the firm.

Christopher received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and primarily focuses his practice on uncontested and contested family law matters, including pre/post nuptial agreements, separation agreements, divorce, marital property division, business valuations, child custody/visitation, spousal and child support, and modifications.

Jonathan received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and focuses his practice on family law including complex financial disputes such as alimony, the division of business and investment assets, and custody.