A New York trial court held that because the state Medicaid agency failed to reconsider its earlier eligibility determination in a timely manner, its amended decision denying benefits is vacated. dickinson-vs-ny-department-of-health-and-onondaga-county-department-of-social-services, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., No. 08-4831, Dec. 3, 2008).
After her application for Medicaid benefits was denied by the Onondaga Department of Social Services (DSS), Viola Dickinson requested a fair hearing, on June 14, 2007. After the fair hearing, a decision reversing the denial and reinstating benefits was entered on December 21, 2007. The DSS requested reconsideration of the decision due to an alleged mistake of law. On April 4, 2008, an amended decision was entered denying benefits.
On appeal, Ms. Dickinson did not challenge the substantive basis of the denial. Rather, she argued that because the agency failed to issue the amended decision within 90 days of her request for a fair hearing as mandated by state law, the amended decision must be vacated. The agency countered that the time limit is not mandatory, that the agency is entitled to review any decision to correct an error of law, and that the amended decision denying benefits was substantively correct.
The Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, held that the time limit imposed on the DSS to issue a decision within 90 days of the request for a fair hearing is mandatory. Because the agency failed to adhere to it, the amended decision denying benefits was reversed and the agency was ordered to comply with the December 21, 2007, order awarding benefits.
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media