The Michigan Judicial Institute (MJI) and Friend of the Court Bureau (FOCB) will present the webinar “A Prescription to Cure Medical Support and Enforcement Aches and Pains” on Thursday, July 27, from 9 to 10 a.m. via Zoom.
This webinar is intended for friend of the court office staff and child support program professionals.
This session will provide the script needed to avoid the headaches when determining ordinary medical expenses (OME) and enforcement of OME and additional medical. It will cover background information about why OME exists and what expenses are included. The discussion will also provide ideas about when it may be appropriate to change the presumed amount of OME and why that could be beneficial. Finally, the webinar talk about how this impacts the need for enforcement of medical support (and their debt types) and what thresholds exist.
Speaking at the webinar will be Paul Gehm, management analyst, Friend of the Court Bureau.
To register for the webinar, visit https://mjieducation.mi.gov and click on “events.” Once registration is approved by MJI, attendees will receive a confirmation e-mail from Zoom with a personal link to join the webinar.
- Posted July 04, 2023
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Webinar offers 'Prescription to Cure Medical Support and Enforcement'
headlines Oakland County
- Young Lawyers Summit
- Court of Appeals affirms privilege waiver for schools in mass casualty events
- Nessel reminds residents of potential punishments for swatting
- Main Street Farmington earns national Great American Main Street Award
- Ex-Michigan coach gets probation for misdemeanors that followed his firing
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




