A New York appeals court holds that a Medicaid applicant who transferred money when she was in good health and two years before entering a nursing home presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption that she transferred the money in order to qualify for Medicaid. Sandoval v. Shah (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 2^nd Dept., No. 2014-11442, 2767/13, Sept. 30, 2015).

Between May 2007 and April 2008, Cecelia Sandoval made several transfers to her children to help them pay bills. She had more than $250,000 in assets remaining after these transfers. In 2010, Ms. Sandoval began exhibiting signs of dementia and entered an assisted living facility and eventually a nursing home. After she depleted her assets, she applied for Medicaid. The state imposed an 11-month penalty period.

Ms. Sandoval appealed the penalty period, arguing that the transfers were not made in anticipation of the need to apply for Medicaid benefits. The state affirmed the penalty period, and Ms. Sandoval appealed to court. 

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, grants her benefits, holding that Ms. Sandoval presented enough evidence to rebut the presumption that she transferred assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. The court rules that the fact that at the time of the transfers, Ms. Sandoval was in good health and living independently and that she still had $250,000 in assets after making the transfers is evidence the transfers were not motivated by a future need for Medicaid.

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2015/D46559.pdf

A narrowly divided Ohio Supreme Court rules that the transfer of a home between spouses prior to Medicaid eligibility is an improper transfer and is subject to the community spouse resource allowance (CSRA) cap.  Ohio ElderLawAnswers member Thom L. Cooper of Cooper, Adel & Associates was among those representing the plaintiff. Estate of Atkinson v. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (Ohio, No. 2013–1773, Aug. 26, 2015).

In 2000 Marcella Atkinson and her husband transferred their home into a revocable living trust. In April 2011, Mrs. Atkinson entered a nursing home and soon applied for Medicaid benefits. In August 2011, following Medicaid’s “snapshot” of the couple’s assets, the home was removed from the trust and placed in Mrs. Atkinson’s name. The next day, Mrs. Atkinson transferred the house to her husband. The state determined an improper transfer had occurred and imposed a penalty period.  Mrs. Atkinson passed away, and her estate appealed to court, arguing that under federal and state statutes a spouse is not ineligible for Medicaid for transferring a home to the other spouse and that an institutionalized spouse may transfer unlimited assets to the community spouse between the date the spouse is institutionalized and the date that the spouse’s Medicaid eligibility is determined. The estate lost at both the trial court and the Ohio Court of Appeals, and the estate appealed.  

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio rules that transfers between spouses are not unlimited after the snapshot date and before Medicaid eligibility and that such transfers are proper only up to the amount that fully funds the CSRA. The court rejects the estate’s reliance on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding in Hughes v. McCarthy (6th Cir., No. 12-3765, Oct. 25, 2013) that an annuity purchased by a community spouse before a Medicaid eligibility determination is not an improper transfer, finding that the purchase of annuities are subject to special rules and “not applicable under these facts.”  The court, however, remands the case for review of the penalty imposed because the Medicaid agency may have applied the wrong statute.  “Neither federal nor state law,” the court writes, “supports the agency’s confiscation, after the CSRA has been set, of the entire amount of transferred assets, some or all of which may have already been allocated to the community spouse on the snapshot date.”

A dissent joined by three justices states that “What this family did is and was permitted by state and federal law. . .  the home is explicitly excluded from the definition of ‘resources’ for purposes of establishing the CSRA.” [emphasis in original]

For the full text of this decision, click here.

For an earlier article on the oral arguments in the case and a link to the video of those arguments, click here.

For a brief commentary on the Ohio court’s decision by Penn State Dickinson Law professor Katherine C. Pearson, click here.

A New Jersey appeals court rules that the state properly disregarded a Medicaid applicant’s care agreement and assessed a transfer penalty because the rate charged under the agreement was too high and the applicant did not provide enough details about the services provided in order to calculate their value. E.A. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-2669-13T3, July 20, 2015).

E.A. lived with her daughter, B.C., from 2004 until 2012. In 2006, they entered into a care agreement in which E.A. agreed to pay B.C. a monthly fee for care. The fee was based on the amount charged by a private home health care company. B.C. occasionally made larger withdrawals than the contract called for and did not keep records of the services provided. In 2012, E.A. entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid. The state ignored the care agreement and found that B.C. had transferred a total of $244,510 to B.C. and imposed a 936-day penalty period.

E.A. appealed, arguing that the state should not have disregarded the care agreement and that the state did not calculate the worth of B.C.’s services. After a hearing, the administrative law judge ruled the penalty period was appropriate, and E.A. appealed to court.

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirms the state’s decision, holding that the state properly disregarded the care agreement. According to the court, B.C. and E.A. did not comply with the agreement when B.C. made additional withdrawals, and B.C. was not entitled to the rate charged by the private home health agency because she did not provide the same full-time services as the agency. In addition, the court rules that E.A. did not provide enough details of the types of services actually provided under the care agreement for the state to calculate the value of her services.

A federal district court rules that nothing in federal law requires the state to disregard a transfer of a life estate by a Medicaid applicant to a disabled veteran, so the applicant’s federal claims are dismissed. Pike ex rel. Estate of Pike v. Sebelius (D. R.I., No. CA 13-392 S, July 16, 2015).

F. Norris Pike’s mother transferred two life estates to her granddaughter, a disabled veteran. Later Mr. Pile’s mother was admitted to a Rhode Island nursing home and applied for Medicaid benefits. The state assessed a penalty period because of the transfers and denied Mr. Pike’s appeal.

Mr. Pike filed suit in federal court, claiming that the state should have applied the Medicaid undue hardship exemption to the transfers because the granddaughter is a disabled veteran. The state filed a motion to dismiss.

The U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, dismisses the federal claims. According to the court, there is nothing in federal law that requires a hardship exemption for a transfer to a disabled veteran, so Mr. Pike did not state a federal claim.   

For the full text of this decision, go to: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7452280974869396478&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr