Trusts and Estates Planning Implications of Recent Developments in Medical Aid in Dying Legislation
A new medical aid in dying bill will be introduced after the state legislature goes into its 2023 session. While the new bill's passage is uncertain, recent legal developments in other states, including Oregon, Vermont and New Jersey, all of which permit MAiD, could make MAiD for terminally-ill New York residents accessible outside of New York.
January 27, 2023 at 02:20 PM
8 minute read
Elder LawThe New York legislature has previously considered medical aid in dying (MAiD) legislation that would allow terminally ill patients to obtain medical assistance in order to hasten their death; however, such legislation has not been successful to date. A new MAiD bill will be introduced after the state legislature goes into its 2023 session. While the new bill's passage is uncertain, recent legal developments in other states, including Oregon, Vermont and New Jersey, all of which permit MAiD, could make MAiD for terminally-ill New York residents accessible outside of New York. These developments give rise to a number of implications for New York trusts and estates practitioners in counseling their clients regarding their end of life decision-making. As a threshold matter, practitioners should inform and educate their clients about their end-of-life options, including the option of traveling to other states and/or establishing residency elsewhere in order to obtain MAiD if they become terminally ill, as well as the obstacles that may need to be overcome and the risks involved. In addition, practitioners with clients who wish to pursue MAiD may be able to take advantage of the rare opportunity of knowing, with a high degree of certainty, the exact date and time of their client's planned death, and work closely with their clients to ensure that their estate planning is optimized and fully implemented prior to their client's death.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLong Island Midsize Firm and Managing Partner Sued for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
6 minute readBar Leader Promotes Intergenerational Links, But Elder Lawyers Should Know When 'It's Time to Stop'
Trending Stories
- 1These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 2'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 3Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 4Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 5Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250