BOOK REVIEW: Adobe Acrobat in One Hour for Lawyers
By Ernie Svenson (Ernie the Attorney; Paperless Chase)
Published 2013 by the Law Practice Division of the American Bar Association
I consider myself to be pretty tech savvy, and use Adobe Acrobat every day in my practice. I knew that the program had much more under the hood than I use, but without knowing exactly what that was, I thought I was getting about as much out of Acrobat as I needed for my law practice. The task of really studying Acrobat to see if there was anything else it could do for me seemed to me to be too daunting for the slim possibility of some small reward.
Then I was lucky enough to receive a reviewers copy of Mr. Svenson’s book. This easily comprehensible short book unlocks some of the power of Acrobat that I had no idea existed. (I say some of the power, because the book is divided into Part I, Basic Skills, and Part II, Intermediate Skills, holding out the prospect that there will be a later effort to teach us some advanced skills.)
Chapters 1 through 7 are pretty basic, but there are some gems included here as well as in the later chapters. For example, did you know that by a simple click of the mouse you can choose to have everything you highlight in an Acrobat document added to your comments? And that you could save those comments as a separate document with page references to the original? It’s all in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 explains options for viewing pdf’s. Chapter 3 teaches you all you need to know about navigating through a pdf. Chapter 4 is an explanation of the various Acrobat menus and how they are used. Chapter 5 is all about the various ways of creating pdf’s and Chapter 6 talks about examining them. Chapter 7 explains the pages menu with some very useful tips, such as how to rearrange pages in a pdf.
Beyond the basics, the book is a treasure trove of information, explanations, and tips for getting the most out of Adobe Acrobat.
Did you know that you can use bookmarks to split a long document into its various components? This one little trick is worth the price of the book. For example, I received an 1132 page administrative record in an ERISA case. That record included medical reports, correspondence, insurance policy, summary plan description, and a computer log of everything that had occurred during the administration of the claim. By using what I learned in Chapter 8, I was able to go through the long document and mark the beginning of each of its components; then, with one click of the mouse, I was able to save all the component documents with their correct names in the correct folder. Wow! This cut hours off the task of separating out each document, naming it and filing it in the client’s folder.
Chapter 9 is all about commenting. Remember that in Chapter 1, the author showed us how to convert highlights to comments. Chapter 9 shows us how to add additional notes to the highlighted text that will show up with those comments, and contains other useful gems as well.
Chapters 10 and 11 cover text editing and OCR. These are very important tools for any lawyer who works with pdf’s.
Chapter 12 is really cool. Here, I learned how to create a digital signature that looks like one that was signed with pen and ink. The next chapter is about digital signatures, but Chapter 12’s instructions about how to make a signature stamp that looks real is far better, in my opinion. Besides, if you create a digital signature as you can learn to do in Chapter 13, you may have problems trying to file it in federal court using their CM/ECF system; I have been instructed not to use them.
Chapter 14 shows you how easy it is to apply “Bates” numbers to pdf’s, and chapter 15 covers redaction of sensitive material.
Did you know that every pdf you create contains metadata, some of which you might not want to make public? You can learn how to remove it in Chapter 16. Chapter 17 contains a good exposition of the search capabilities of Acrobat and is worth the read, even if you routinely search pdf’s already.
Chapter 18 explains how to protect your pdf documents in two ways. You can limit who can read it by requiring a “document opening password” and you can limit what those who can read it can do with it by requiring a “document permissions password.”
Chapter 19 is all about PDF/A’s – why they exist and how to create them. You might think of a pdf/a as a stripped document. They contain no hyperlinks, no imbedded files such as photos or audio files, and are meant for long-term archiving.
The author also includes an appendix with recommended preference settings, a keyboard shortcut cheat sheet, sample workflows and a host of other tidbits for the lawyer who uses pdf’s in his practice.
SUMMARY: Every lawyer who handles large PDF documents (and who doesn’t?) should have a copy of this book somewhere in his or her office. Whether the lawyer uses it or some other person in the office does, Adobe Acrobat in One Hour for Lawyers is bound to increase the productivity of anyone who wrestles with pdf’s.
Why do district courts ignore compelling Supreme Court precedent in ERISA benefits cases? In a recent case from Texas, Lopez v. Liberty Life, a district court judge did just that. And, unfortunately, it’s not unusual. But, they seem to do it only in ERISA benefits cases. The judicial cards are already stacked against a party claiming an ERISA benefit in federal court, and that litigant cannot go to any other court. So, why do federal judges insist on piling on? There may be many answers to the question, but none of them justify this wholesale disregard of the few Supreme Court opinions that help the disabled worker.
Rebecca Lopez was disabled from work after a fall in which she suffered an aggravation of a serious spinal condition, including a tumor on her spinal cord. She applied for disability benefits and was initially approved. But, those benefits were terminated after 7 months. After an unsuccessful appeal to the insurance company, as she was required to do, she filed suit in federal court.
ERISA provides that a beneficiary may file suit for withheld benefits, and “. . . to obtain other appropriate equitable relief. . .” In a 1996 case, Varity Corp. v. Howe, the United States Supreme Court held that when a beneficiary states a claim for a specific benefit, he or she cannot maintain a claim “other equitable relief”. The Court had held that this provision was a “catchall” or “remedial” phrase and was only for people whose claims did not fall into the one of the specifically named causes of action. In other words, if you claimed withheld benefits, you could not also claim “other equitable relief”.
Then, the Supreme Court, in Cigna Corp. v. Amara, held that a beneficiary could state a cause of action for monetary damages and for equitable relief. The Supreme Court specifically ruled that a court could award a “surcharge” to make a beneficiary whole. In the wake of Amara, Gearlds v. Entergy Services, Inc., was decided by the U.S. 5th Circuit (that has supervisory jurisdiction over courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas). The Gearlds court ruled that because of the holding in Amara, just because a beneficiary is seeking monetary damages “is not the end of the inquiry into equity”. The court concluded that even though the plaintiff had stated a claim for monetary damages, he had also stated a claim plausible claim for equitable relief, in the form of a “surcharge”.
Mrs. Lopez’s lawyer was aware of the holdings in Amara and Gearlds and sued for reinstatement of her benefits and for equitable relief in the form of a surcharge on the withheld benefits equal to the profit that Liberty Life had made on those benefits during the period they were not paid.
In spite of Amara and Gearlds the district court judge reached the impossible conclusion that Mrs. Lopez “. . . has a potential remedy [for monetary damages] and is not entitled to relief under the catchall provision.” In other words, it is perfectly OK for Liberty to stop paying benefits to her and invest the amount of those benefits in the market. If it is found that the benefits were wrongfully withheld, Liberty will have to pay them back, BUT CAN KEEP THE PROFITS IT MADE OFF HER MONEY! This is not only insane reasoning, it is also patently unfair, and it violates the very principles of equity.
But, then, this is ERISA!
A young parent secures a reasonably well-paying job with good benefits. In truth, because the family is young and dependent on her income, the fringe benefits are a significant factor in the decision to take the job. The new job holder feels secure in the knowledge that the job will pay enough to make ends meet and maybe even save a little, will take care of the medical bills when any family member is sick, and will pay benefits if she becomes disabled.
During the next few years, as the children grow, there are the inevitable illnesses and accidents, and while they may exact a toll, at least the medical bills are covered. But, then, occasionally, the insurance company will deny a claim for medical expense. The denial may be based on lack of medical necessity or a claim that the treatment is experimental. Or maybe a family member needs surgery. The insurance company may want a second opinion – and the second opinion agrees with the first. They are told that everything will be covered, after meeting their deductible and co-pays.
Paying the deductibles and co-pays may create a strain, but the family has stewarded its resources carefully and there are savings that will cover them. The surgery is believed to be a complete success and the patient is on the road to complete recovery.
Then the bills start coming in. The patient then discovers that the anesthesiologist was not “in network”. The insurer will pay only 10% of his bill. The bill is nearly $3,000, and the family must pay 90% of that. A second surgeon was on standby during the surgery and his bill is not covered; the family must pay that.
These extra bills create problems, what with the co-pays and deductibles that they have already had to pay. But, they weather the storm.
The good feeling of knowing that the family will be taken care of if something happens to the bread-winner begins to fade, to be replaced by worry. What if something really serious occurs?
The patient takes a turn for the worse. It turns out that the surgery wasn’t a complete success, and that the road to recovery may be somewhat longer than was first thought. But, thank heaven the patient works for a company that provides good benefits. If she is off work due to an injury or illness, the company has a salary continuation plan that pays full salary for up to 90 days. Then, if she is still unable to work, she will receive disability insurance benefits.
During the first 90 days the patient finds out that she is not going to be unable to work for much longer than 90 days. A nice lady in the Employer’s HR department gives her the forms to fill out to apply for disability insurance, and maybe even helps her fill them out. She gets them filled out as soon as she can so that there will be no delay the transition between her employer’s salary continuation plan and the disability benefits.
After submitting the application for disability benefits she receives a form letter from the insurance company that tells her that they are investigating her claim. They tell her that her claim is governed by ERISA, and that they will decide her eligibility within 45 days unless they need more time, and then they can take an additional 30 days to decide.
When the salary continuation payments are about to end, our young mother begins to panic. The family’s savings are depleted and she has heard nothing more from the disability insurance company. After navigating through the complicated telephone menu, she gets the voice mail of the person who she believes can give her information about her claim. This may be repeated every day for several days, but finally she speaks to a human. She is told that they are very near a decision and that she will hear from them shortly.
Ninety days go by and still not word. Voice mail messages go unanswered. The salary continuation has ended and either there is no income or the family has to depend on the income of only one parent while its expenses are based on the combined incomes of both parents.
Finally, she gets a letter from the insurance company. But the news is not good. The letter says that the insurer has had her medical records examined by independent physicians. These physicians have concluded that although she does have a verifiable medical condition, it does not prevent her from working. Therefore, the insurance company has decided that she is not entitled to disability benefits.
The letter also tells her that she has appeal rights. She can appeal the decision withing 180 days, and she can include with her appeal any additional information that she wants the insurer to consider. She doesn’t have any idea what additional information she needs to include. So, she sends a letter to the insurance company telling them that she appeals their decision.
The insurer has the records examined by other “independent” doctors and sends her a letter telling her that the new doctors agree with the original decision to deny benefits and that they are affirming their original decision. The letter also tells her that the decision is final and if she still disagrees with it the only thing she can do is to file a law suit in federal court.
Filing a suit in federal court is not something our disability claimant can do by herself. She knows she needs a lawyer. There is a nice lawyer who is a member of her church who recently drafted wills for her and her husband, so she calls and makes an appointment with him.
Now the reality of ERISA becomes apparent. This lawyer explains to her that ERISA is the Employee Income Security Act. That under this law, the claims file generated by the insurance company is the only thing a court will look at if she files a suit. She cannot file a suit and tell her story to a jury. She cannot call witnesses to testify. He tells her that hardly anyone ever wins an ERISA case, and that he doesn’t handle them. If she is lucky, this attorney will refer her to an experienced ERISA attorney. Unfortunately, many lawyers who do not routinely handle ERISA cases will either try to handle one or will not know any lawyers to refer her to and tell her that she doesn’t have any chance to win.
This claimant is one of the lucky ones. She manages to find her way to a lawyer experienced in handling ERISA claims. She meets with the ERISA lawyer who tells her that although ERISA claims are difficult, they are not altogether hopeless. There are ways in some cases to get around the harsh rules imposed by courts in ERISA litigation. There are no guarantees , but this lawyer thinks she has a fighting chance to win and agrees to take her case.
ERISA DISABILITY INSURANCE
Unfortunately, the above scenario is not a rare occurrence – it happens many times every day. The insurance companies and plan administrators have the upper hand. They know the way in and through the ERISA maze; a journey full of traps for the unwary. But there are lawyers who have discovered ways to help claimants navigate these difficult waters.
What can experienced ERISA counsel do to help?
For years people disabled from fibromyalgia have put up not only with the painful condition but also with the callous treatment by disability insurers who treat them as if they are lying malingerers. Insurance companies get away with it because the public generally is not well educated about the disease and it has not been able to be verified by medical tests. However, a research team led by Dr. Frank Rice, a neuroscientist, has uncovered physical differences between fibromyalgia sufferers and those who don’t have the disease. The National Biotechnology Information Center (NBIC) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently released the team’s findings that there is a causative physical pathology for fibromyalgia. This is a huge breakthrough and will help thousands of fibromyalgia sufferers prove their cases.
Because no one could point to a cause of the disease, and because there was no “objective” test to prove its existence, it was considered by many to be either psychosomatic or wholly made-up by the purported sufferers for “secondary gain”. Disability insurers, in particular, use this lack of “objective evidence” to deny claims for disability insurance benefits to fibromyalgia sufferers.
Dr. Rice reported the team’s major discovery that the cause of fibromyalgia is physical, making diagnosis more certain and explaining the multitude of varied symptoms and effects. The research team identified alterations in core body temperature as a culprit, and explained that blood acts as a coolant in our bodies much the same as water does in the radiator of a car. The major organs and active muscles of our bodies require a constant temperature of about 98.6 degrees, and most of us are able to maintain that temperature. But, fibromyalgia sufferers cannot.
Losing too much heat (hypothermia) or gaining too much heat (hyperthermia), causes our body’s primary thermostat, the hypothalamus, to struggle to maintain balance. It does this by regulating our blood supply to the various organs. Blood carries nutrients and oxygen to our brain and other tissues and takes away waste. When we use our muscles, particularly the hands and feet, blood flows in capillaries (the smallest part of our blood supply system) between the skin and muscles to supply these nutrients and oxygen. The capillaries also act as temperature regulators and either conserve or release heat. They run throughout our entire bodies but are highly concentrated in our hands and feet.
Capillary function can be diminished by injury and other causes. When that happens, muscle and skin tissue cannot get proper nutrition and oxygen, waste cannot be taken away, and normal temperature cannot be maintained. One result is a build-up of lactic acid in muscles causing pain that can seem to ‘travel’ to and from different areas of the body from one day to the next and can cause fatigue, a symptom commonly reported by fibromyalgia sufferers.
According to this research, fibromyalgia has pathology and is not psychosomatic so those who suffer from this ‘syndrome’ can now rest assured it is not all in their minds. And, perhaps more important, they will be assisted by this research in proving their disability to their disability insurers.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in U.S. v. Ashcraft, No. 12-2449 (8th Cir. 10/9/2013) that disability benefits are “earnings” within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a) (“CCPA”), and therefore are protected by that act.
The CCPA protects a portion of earnings from garnishment. Generally, only the lesser of 25% of weekly earnings, or the amount that weekly earnings exceed 30 times the minimum wage, may be garnished. But, that protection only extends to “earnings” and not to other income that a debtor may receive.
In this case, Ms. Ashcraft received disability benefits provided through her employment. While she was drawing these benefits, she pleaded guilty to several federal crimes and was sentenced to a period of incarceration and to make restitution.
Upon her release from prison, Ms. Ashcraft’s disability insurance benefits resumed. The government sought to take all her benefits to enforce her restitution obligation. She resisted, arguing that only 25% of these benefits were subject to garnishment, as they were periodic payments provided to her in the course of her employment. The district court (Northern District of Iowa) overruled her objections and held that all her disability benefits were subject to garnishment.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that the CCPA’s definition of “earnings”
. . . means compensation paid or payable for personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.
However, the Eighth Circuit also noted that the circuit courts are split over whether disability insurance benefits, regardless of whether provided through employment, are “earnings . . . pursuant to a pension or retirement program.” Some courts have ruled that once pension benefits have passed into the hands of the beneficiary, they are no longer “earnings” and lose the protection of the CCPA. Such a holding would seem to make the CCPA protections illusory and instead of protecting earnings they would only force the creditor to enforce its garnishment against the beneficiary or his bank account rather than being allowed to seize all the funds before they get into the hands of the beneficiary. Recognizing this, the 5th Circuit (that has jurisdiction over federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) ruled in United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534, 543–44 (5th Cir. 2010) that the CCPA unambiguously protects pensions and that payments thereunder do not lose their protection simply by being paid to the beneficiary.
The Eighth Circuit agreed, but found that the Fifth Circuit case was not exactly on point as it dealt with pension payments and not disability payments. But, citing a bankruptcy case from Alabama, In re Conway, No. 03-11200-MAM-7, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1988 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2003) that concluded a debtor’s disability insurance payments were “earnings”, the court turned to its own analysis.
The court began its discussion by noting the Supreme Court’s analysis in Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320, 331 (2005) that the common feature of various types of benefit plans, including disability, illness, or unemployment, is that they all provide income that substitutes for wages earned as salary or hourly compensation.
Because Ashcraft received the disability payments through her former employer, they were payments designed to function as wage substitutes; they were not merely “traceable in some way” to her compensation, but were a direct component to her for her personal services. Thus, they were “compensation paid or payable for personal services” by her former employer as disability payments rather than as wages or salary.
The court held:
The government’s argument that Ashcraft receives the payments precisely because she cannot render “personal services” due to her disability incorrectly focuses on the time the payments are received rather than the character of the payments. Simply because the disability payments are delayed—simply because [her employer] received Ashcraft’s personal services before Ashcraft began receiving her disability payments—does not take the payments out of the category of compensation. The disability payments constitute “‘other compensation’ to employees paid to [her] as a part of [her] earnings for personal services performed in the past.” Conway, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1988, at *22.
The court concluded that Ms. Ashcraft’s disability benefits were “earnings” within the plain meaning of the CCPA and are therefore subject to the Act’s limitations on garnishment.