Archive for September, 2010

If I am approved for Social Security Disability, are my children also entitled to a Social Security benefit?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

More than likely if you are approved for SSD benefits your children will also receive a benefit based on your earnings record.  In order for this to happen, your earnings over the years must have been sufficient to the point that there is money left on the record for your children.  It has been my experience that most people who qualify for SSD have money left over so their kids also receive some benefit.  As with SSD for yourself, the amount that the children receive is based on your earnings when you were working.

Just because you have applied for SSD benefits does not mean that the Social Security Administration will automatically process your kids claims.  If you are approved for SSD benefits you must also make the administration aware that you have minor children (once kids turn 18 their benefits stop).  You will likely have to take birth certificates in to your local social security office and they can then process those benefits.

If you only qualify for SSI benefits, then your children are not entitled to any benefit, based on your disability.   This is because SSI is a need based program and as a result there are no benefits available to children of a disabled individual.  However, if the child is disabled, then they very well could qualify for SSI benefits as a result of their own disability.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Social Security Law | No Comments »

Parental Alienation: A Growing Concern

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Many of the issues facing parents involved in a divorce or paternity action involving child custody are not specific to New Mexico, but occurs in all fifty states. One such issue is the growing concern of parental alienation.

A contested custody dispute often creates a situation where one parental attempts to alienate children from the other parent.  An example of parent alienation includes when one parent seeks to alienate the child from the other parent by doing things like preventing visitation between the child and the other parent.  Also, bad-mouthing the absent parent can be considered parental alienation. Sometimes it is possible for grand parents and other relatives to alienate a child from an absent parent. In extreme situations, one parent can go so far as making false allegations in court to prevent the other parent from seeing the child.

Whatever the cause, parental alienation is a serious situation and if it goes on for an extend period of time, it can result in destroying a parent-child relationship.  Counseling or psychological therapy is often needed and recommended for all of the parties involved in a parental alienation matter. If a party to custody action believes that alienation is a serious concern, they will need to bring that to the court’s attention immediately.  This allows the court to put in place some safeguards to stop or limit the breakdown of communication and trust between the child and the alienated parent.

At Sanders, Bruin, Coll & Worley, P.A. we have experienced divorce and family law attorneys who know how essential it is to getting these issues heard and addressed by the court before it is too late save the relationship that exists between a parent and a child.

Posted in Family Law | No Comments »

Was My Employer Required to Carry Workers Compensation Insurance?

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

Worker suffers work-related injury, gives proper notice, and seeks medical attention, only to find out his employer did not carry workers’ compensation insurance.  This is a reality many injured workers are facing with increasing frequency.  Given the current economic climate it should not be surprising that many employers have attempted to cut costs.  What is surprising is that many employers have chosen to eliminate their workers’ compensation insurance as a cost-cutting measure . Unfortunately, such actions carry potentially severe consequences for the injured worker and the employer.

When an injured worker discovers his employer did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, he or she must first consider whether his employer was required by law to carry insurance.

Here are some general guidelines for determining which employers are required to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Please note that a much more in-depth discussion is required to fully analyze this issue, and this is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion on this issue.

  • In most industries, all employers who employ three or more workers are required by law to have workers’ compensation coverage. There is ongoing litigation concerning which employees  (executives, family members, etc.) must be counted.  This can differ based on the type of business (LLC, partnership, corporation, etc.).
  • All employers in the construction industry must have coverage, regardless of the number of employees.

Obviously, then this will cover the majority of employers, meaning the strong majority of employers are required to have workers’ compensation insurance.

The law, however, exempts the following categories of employers from carrying workers’ compensation coverage:

  • Private domestic servants
  • Real Estate salespersons
  • Farm and Ranch laborers

There has been extensive litigation establishing what specifically falls under these exemptions, but that requires much more in depth discussion under each category.

Your options as an injured worker differ based on whether your employer was lawfully or unlawfully uninsured.  Accordingly, it is important to determine whether your employer was required to carry workers compensation insurance.

Posted in Worker's Comp Law | No Comments »