Author: JGL Law

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

In this episode we invited Rick Rudman. He is a seasoned and well tested professional with over 30 years of business experience, with 20 of those years focused in the financial industry. Over the years, Michael has strategically grown his practice while remaining committed to his emphasis on customer service and high-level planning. He created a team of highly motivated professionals who share his vision and drive.

In this episode, Rick Rudman answers the following questions and more:

1. How does pre-sale renovation help the Realtors and sellers?
2. What happens if the house does not sell?
3. What does the contract that the sellers sign looks like?
4. What happens if the couple is getting a divorce and you run into delays?

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

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

In this episode, we invited Michael Loftus. He is a seasoned and well tested professional with over 30 years of business experience, with 20 of those years focused in the financial industry. Over the years, Michael has strategically grown his practice while remaining committed to his emphasis on customer service and high-level planning. He created a team of highly motivated professionals who share his vision and drive.

In this episode, Michael Loftus answers the following questions and more:

1. How did the beginning of the pandemic affect the financial market?
2. How did financial planning pivot in light of COVID?
3. What to expect in Wealth Management in the post-vaccine world? 
4. How will the new administration affect the financial market?

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

Injuries to newborn babies and/or mom can be devastating.  These injuries can occur during the pregnancy or the labor and delivery process itself.  The harm can be catastrophic and result in death or severe disabilities that lead to a lifetime of expensive care.

What types of pregnancy or birth injuries can be the result of medical malpractice?

Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (“HIE”) This occurs when the unborn baby does not get enough oxygen during the labor and delivery and the health care provider waits too long to deliver the baby. Signs are often missed by the health care providers and this condition often results in severe brain damage or even death to the baby. HIE is often a cause of cerebral palsy.

Uterine rupture can quickly lead to the death of mother and/or baby.  This catastrophic event can occur if the wrong medications or dosages of medications are used during labor or if a health care provider fails to discover problems with the uterus while mom is pregnant.  

Shoulder dystocia occurs when the baby’s position in the womb causes difficulty in delivery.  The baby’s shoulder and arm can be injured, leading to damage to the bundle of nerves in the shoulder (“brachial plexus.”) The baby may lose the ability to move and use the arm properly and require extensive surgery and therapy throughout his or her life.

If your child or loved one suffered from any of these conditions, or you suspect that a mistake was made during your pregnancy or delivery, please contact the lawyers at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA and speak with us about your case.

What if my child is older-am I able to still pursue a claim?

Generally, an injured party has a short period of time-2 or 3 years, depending on the state or district, to file a lawsuit for medical malpractice.  However, that time period is extended if the malpractice victim is a child. Do not wait – call us today at (301) 220-2200.

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

In this episode, we invited Andrea Lopes. After over 20 years as a psychotherapist, she has built upon that experience to become a life coach, providing people with the tools and personal support needed to make significant positive changes in their lives. 

In this episode Andrea Lopes answers the following questions and more:

1. What are young kids dealing with directly resulting from the pandemic?
2. What issues have arisen in adults since March 2020?
3. What kind of stresses are showing up in couples?
4. What can people expect in terms of mental health, post pandemic?

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

UPDATE: In July 2021, the Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest appellate Court, changed the law on consent and the legal standard when establishing De Facto parenthood when there are two (2) existing legal parents. These updates are discussed in my updated blog post.

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

This series discusses:

• What is Third Party Custody?
• What’s a De Facto Parent?
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Unfit Parents
• Participating as a Third Party in a Custody Case
• Step-Parents
• De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families 
• Grandparent Visitation 
• The Future

Why Does Consent Matter?

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

What are Multi-Parent Families?

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

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

Until E.N. v. T.R., 247 Md.App. 234 (2020), which ushers in the era of legally recognized multi-parent families and unilateral parent consent.

E.N. v. T.R.

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the Big Deal?

E.N. v. T.R. raises more questions than it answers.  For example:

• Is there a limit on the number of legally recognized parents a child can have?
• Can a parent overcome one-sided consent and prevent third party custodial rights from being established?
• Once recognized as a legal parent, can legal parenthood be terminated?  How?
• What about child support?
• How far can parental constitutional rights be pushed?

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

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

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

This series discusses:

• What is Third Party Custody?
• What’s a De Facto Parent?
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Unfit Parents
• Participating as a Third Party in a Custody Case
• Step-Parents
• De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families 
• Grandparent Visitation 
• The Future 

Who is a Step-Parent?

Perhaps to state the obvious and relying on Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018), a step-parent is the spouse of a biological or adoptive parent.

In child custody, a step-parent is, legally speaking, a third party.  A third party is someone who is not the child’s biological parent or adoptive parent.  These third parties are, legally, strangers to the child (unless certain conditions are met).  Practically, they may serve as a parent. 

The law treats third parties differently than biological or adoptive parents in a custody case.  And there are different categories of third parties, with different legal standards to prove.  There are 1) De Facto parents and 2) everyone else.

Plus, visitation and custody are treated as very much the same (despite how practically different they may look).

What Custody Rights do Step-Parents Have?

Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018) involved custody litigation between a parent and step-parent, in which the step-parent sought legal recognition as a De Facto parent of the parent’s child from a previous relationship.  Before filing suit, the parent consented to joint legal and physical custody (50/50 schedule) of the child.  Suit was filed to enforce and modify the consent agreement.  At trial, the step-parent was awarded joint legal custody with tie-breaker and primary residential custody with visitation to the parent.  Also, child support between parent and step-parent was decided.

The child’s second biological parent lived abroad and did not participate in the litigation.

“Generally, step-parents who have neither adopted a child nor be declared his guardian have no parental rights or obligations that survive divorce.”  (Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 294 Md. 183 (1982))  However, when a step-parent wants custodial rights and meets the legal standard to be considered a De Facto parent, a step-parent may seek recognition as a De Facto parent without proving exceptional circumstances or parental unfitness.

The Kpetigo decision decides a number of issues:

• Conover’s De Facto parent standard does not apply only to same-sex couples (This author recognizes that one parent in Conover was transgender and transitioned between the court trial and the appeal, though the opinion does not clearly reflect this);
• In fact, the gender of the parties does not matter;
• And, whether the parties are married or not does not matter;
• De Facto parents could be grandparents, opposite-sex step-parents, boyfriends and girlfriends, aunts and uncles, and (potentially) a neighbor; and,
• The parent’s one-sided consent (without absent parent’s involvement in the litigation or objection) was sufficient consent to create a De Facto parent relationship (discussed more below and in my blog, “De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families”.

Questions Raised…But Not Yet Answered

Conover hinges on consent – a parent’s consent to the De Facto parent serving as a parent.  Conover only involved 2 potential parents – the biological parent and the De Facto parent.  Kpetigo took this a half-step further.  I use “half-step” because the parent’s consent was one-sided and because the absent parent did not participate, so the sufficiency of one-sided consent was not litigated or disputed. 

Kpetigo left unanswered the questions of:

• Consent & whether one parent could unilaterally consent to a De Facto parent relationship?
• Consent & whether one-sided is sufficient to establish a De Facto parent relationship over the objection of the second parent?
• Whether Maryland formally recognizes multiple De Facto parents?

Looking Ahead

A quick comment about evolving thinking on this…  In 2016’s Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016), the Court of Appeals’s majority opinion cautioned against multi-parent families.  In its Footnote 18, the Court of Appeals recommended taking into account when deciding custody whether others had already been recognized as De Facto parents and cautioned courts to “avoid having a child or family be overburdened or fractured by multiple persons seeking access.”  One of the concurring opinions found this caution odd in light of the unanswered question of unilateral consent.

The lower appellate Court’s Kpetigo decision opens the door for multi-parent families, without a definitive resolution (because biological mother opted out of the litigation, so her rights were not considered), and raises (but does not answer) the question of whether De Facto parenthood can be established with only one parent’s consent.  One needn’t wait long…2020’s E.N. v. T.R. (247 Md.App. 234 (2020)) (discussed in my next blog, “De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families ”) answers these, and raises more, increasingly complex questions in result.

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

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

This series discusses:

• What is Third Party Custody?
• What’s a De Facto Parent?
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Unfit Parents
• Participating as a Third Party in a Custody Case
• Step-Parents
• De Facto Parents & Multi-Parent Families 
• Grandparent Visitation 
• The Future 

Who/What is a Third Party?

In the context of child custody, a third party is someone who is not the child’s biological parent or adoptive parent.  A third party may be related by parents’ marriage or blood (other than biological parent), or may be entirely unrelated to the child.  Legally, they are strangers to the child (unless certain conditions are met, which this series explores).  Practically, they are significantly involved in raising a child.

The law treats third parties differently than biological or adoptive parents in a custody case.  Third parties fall into different categories with different legal standards.  There are 1) De Facto parents and 2) everyone else.

A relevant side point is that custody and visitation are legally equivalent (though, practically, can be quite different).

A Quick (and Abbreviated) Timeline

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) opinion on grandparent visitation rights.  In result, third party custody and visitation rights could no longer be evaluated based solely upon the best interests of the child.  Troxel calls for sufficient protection of a parent’s Constitutional right of care, custody, and control of their children.  After Troxel and before 2016, Maryland’s third party custody law backtracked and, frankly, suffered.  (My blog “Grandparent Visitation (Sigh.)” fills in this part of the timeline.)

The first major positive development occurred in 2016 with Conover v. Conover, 450 Md. 51 (2016), which reestablished the legal category of De Facto parents.  The Conover case examined third party custody for a same-sex and/or transgender married couple (see its Footnote 1 regarding gender), only one of whom was biologically related to the child.  For an introduction to who is a De Facto parent, please read this blog.

2017 ushered in major updates to Maryland’s third party custody law (so, everyone who is not a De Facto parent) in Burak v. Burak, 455 Md. 564 (2017), involving grandparent custody.  Maryland’s Court of Appeals refined the definitions and standards of “exceptional circumstances” and “unfitness” that a third party must prove to obtain custody.  For related topics, please check out these articles linked above.

In 2018, the Court of Special Appeals applied De Facto parent law to step-parents in Kpetigo v. Kpetigo, 238 Md.App. 561 (2018).

And, in its 2020 decision E.N. v. T.R., (Court of Special Appeals, August 25, 2020), the Court of Special Appeals answered questions involving parent consent to establishing a De Facto parent relationship and confirmed its open door for multi-parent families (so, families with more than 2 legal parents).

So What?

Third party custody is a complex, rapidly evolving area of family law.  Likely by necessity due to the infinite shapes of families and people acting as parents.  These dynamic changes mean that third parties have gained significant rights with each new appellate case over a fairly short period of time. 

Which is an interesting contrast to the state of parent-parent custody legal developments…considering that Maryland seems unable to pass a custody statute and parent-parent custody case law is relatively unchanging.

However, there are still unresolved questions, like:

• Is there a limit on the number of legally recognized parents a child can have?
• Once recognized as a legal parent, can legal parenthood be terminated?  How?
• What about child support?
• How far can parental constitutional rights be pushed?

I discuss these and others in “What is The Future of Third Party Custody?”.

Since 2002, Lindsay Parvis has represented clients in Maryland custody, divorce, and marital matters. She negotiates, litigates, and advocates for the best interests of her clients, whether in contested litigation, uncontested settlement, or premarital and other agreements. Her clients are not only spouses and parents, but also children whose interests she is appointed by the court to represent in contested custody litigation.  Lindsay strives to improve Maryland law in the General Assembly, volunteering her time to monitor, advocate, and educate about legislative developments in family law.

You can follow her for discussion, news, and developments in Maryland family law on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LindsayParvis.com, and YouTube.

Concluding three years of contentious family law litigation led by law firm and the court’s dismissal of a protective order against the client’s husband, Darin Rumer stepped in as an assertive advocate and quickly mediated a new separation agreement successfully modifying child custody.

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

In this episode, we invited Nurit Coombe. She has been a licensed real estate agent since 2001. During that time, she has won countless awards and currently holds the distinction of owning the #1 RE/MAX Team in the state of Maryland and the Central Atlantic Region. Her team is also the #1 Real Estate Team (among all companies) in Montgomery County and North Bethesda. Nurit has built a reputation for offering precise market knowledge, technological expertise, and bringing boundless energy and tactical negotiation skills to everything she works on.

In this episode, Nurit Coombe answers the following questions and more:

1. The effects of the pandemic on the real estate market
2. What can buyers expect with the lack of inventory in the market 
3. What is geo-fencing? How can it help the buyers?
4. How things will look in Real Estate, post pandemic?

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

Hospital system agrees to pay United States $345 Million to settle claims of Medicare fraud brought by CFO-Turned-Whistleblower.

Read more here.

Maryland – The 2021 edition of Maryland, Super Lawyers magazine recently named 15 Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A. attorneys to its annual Maryland, Super Lawyers lists.

The Maryland, attorneys who made this year’s Super Lawyers list, including their primary practice areas as identified by Super Lawyers, are:

GREENBELT, MD –

• Andrew E. Greenwald –  Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

• Burt M. Kahn – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

• Jay P. Holland – Labor & Employment

• Steven M. Pavsner – Medical Malpractice: Plaintiff

• Timothy F. Maloney – Gen Litigation 

• ROCKVILLE, MD – 

• David M. Bulitt – Family Law

• Jeffrey N. Greenblatt – Family Law

• Patrick W. Dragga – Family Law 

• P. Lindsay Parvis – Family Law 

• Anne E. Grover – Family Law

• Jeffrey Hannon – Family Law 

RISING STAR  – 

• Maritza Carmona – Civil Litigation: Plaintiff 

• Alyse Prawde – Civil Litigation: Plaintiff 

• Rama Taib-Lopez – Family Law

• Christopher R. Castellano – Family Law

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

For Immediate Release

Contact: Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A.

Veronica Nannis; vnannis@jgllaw.com

Sarah Chu; schu@jgllaw.com

Jay Holland; jholland@jgllaw.com

Phone: 301-220-2200

FRAUD CASE BROUGHT BY WHISTLEBLOWER NURSES RESULTS IN SETTLEMENT IN HOME HEALTH CASE

Doctor’s Choice agrees to pay $5.8M to settle allegations it fraudulently increased patient visits and engaged in a kickback scheme with doctors.

GREENBELT, MD – November 23, 2020 – Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. represents three healthcare workers who blew the whistle on Florida-based home health agency Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc. (“Doctor’s Choice”) resulting in a $5.8 million settlement. The False Claims Act (qui tam) settlement resolves allegations that the company fraudulently increased patient visits in order to increase Medicare payments and that it paid illegal kickbacks for doctor referrals, as detailed in the Department of Justice’s announcement.     

The whistleblowers are experienced healthcare providers, including registered nurse, Sara Billings, and physical therapist, Marina Eschoyez-Quiroga, both who worked for Doctor’s Choice primarily out of Naples, FL. The complaint recounted how the whistleblowers first reported their concerns internally to management, to no avail, before reporting to the Department of Justice, which undertook a thorough, four-year investigation before intervening and settling.

The lawsuit is unsealed for the public, after the United States filed a notice of intervention and dismissal. Its investigation and intervention focused on allegations that Doctor’s Choice increased the number of services rendered to Medicare patients in order to avoid lower payments. The complaint alleged that Doctor’s Choice automatically inflated patient visits without medical necessity or the independent medical judgment of the on-the-ground medical personnel.

“Providing medically unnecessary services places patients at risk and jeopardizes millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Tampa Division Michael McPherson in the Department of Justice release. “This settlement highlights the FBI’s commitment to protect the integrity of the federally funded healthcare system.”

The whistleblowers are represented by Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland, who prosecute civil health care fraud cases nationwide. Medicare laws require all patient care to be reasonable and medically necessary. Unreasonably increasing patient services in order to obtain higher Medicare reimbursement violates Medicare laws and the False Claim Act. “Civil healthcare fraud settlements like these are important to maintain the integrity of our healthcare system as well as taxpayer dollars. When healthcare providers improperly inflate medically unnecessary services for financial gain, this puts patients at risk and increases health care costs,” explained Sarah Chu.

Veronica Nannis, lead counsel for the whistleblowers, touted their courage, “the front-line healthcare workers who blew the whistle here are uniquely brave. While many knew of this scheme, only three were courageous enough to come forward. They protected their patients though it meant sticking their necks out as whistleblowers.” Jay Holland added, “our clients are leading by example. They hope this encourages others to report fraud, especially the kind that affects patient care or risks patient health or safety.”

The case is captioned U.S. ex rel. Billings et al. v. Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-3112, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The Relators are represented by a team of experienced whistleblower attorneys including Veronica Nannis, Sarah Chu and Jay Holland of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and local counsel Audrey Schechter of Law Offices of Audrey Hildes Schechter. The federal government’s team was led by Charles Harden, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Florida, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI.

Jay Holland is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and is Chair of the Firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Departments. His False Claims Act cases have resulted in recoveries of over $600 Million for the United States. His recent publications include articles for The National Law Journal, Trial Magazine, DC Trial Lawyer, and the Maryland State Bar Association Employment Law Deskbook. He can be reached at jholland@jgllaw.com Sarah Chu is an associate at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake. She works in the qui tam practice, representing whistleblowers nationwide in sealed investigations and unsealed litigation under the federal and state False Claims Acts. She can be reached at schu@jgllaw.com

Veronica Nannis is a partner at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake and serves as the Chair of the Firm’s Civil Litigation Department. She litigates qui tam cases and consumer class actions nationwide, typically involving kickbacks and other fraud. A Super Lawyer’s Rising Star in DC and Maryland for several years, she was awarded the MAJ Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2011. Past publications include those for Law 360, the ABA Health e-Source, and The Daily Record. She can be reached at vnannis@jgllaw.com