A U.S. district court denied a preliminary injunction to a Medicaid applicant who sued New Jersey to prevent the state from denying benefits based on her dead husband’s assets. Flade v. Connolly (U.S. Dist. Ct, D. N.J., No. 16-4407, Sept. 23, 2016).
Plaintiff, Eileen Flade, was a nursing home resident. On April 12, 2016, plaintiff applied for Medicaid benefits through the Bergen County Board of Social Services. Soon thereafter, plaintiff’s husband passed away. At the time of his death, plaintiff’s husband owned assets totaling approximately $70,000. Plaintiff owned less than $1,000. In his will, plaintiff’s husband left plaintiff the smallest share of his estate permitted by law, called the “elective share.” The elective share is equal to approximately one-third of the estate. However, plaintiff did not claim the one-third elective share she was legally permitted to pursue in court.
On June 9, 2016, plaintiff’s application for Medicaid benefits was denied. The Board of Social Services found that all of her late husband’s assets were available to plaintiff, thereby putting her over the resource limit of $2,000 for Medicaid eligibility. After being denied for Medicaid benefits, plaintiff feared being discharged from her nursing facility due to non-payment.
In the following month, July 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the federal Medicaid Act. In August 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from (1) treating the assets of her late husband’s estate as a resource that she has access to for her own care, and (2) denying Medicaid during the pendency of the litigation. Defendants opposed the motion, and cross-moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants argued that even if it were true that she did not have access to her husband’s assets, plaintiff made gifts during Medicaid’s “lookback period.” The lookback period is the 60-month, or 5 year, period during which the Medicaid agency scrutinizes the applicant’s assets to ensure that the applicant did not dispose of or transfer assets for less than fair market value in order to qualify for Medicaid. Gifts made during the lookback period would disqualify plaintiff from receiving Medicaid benefits for a period of time.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motions. The court held that plaintiff did not have access to her late husband’s assets and, as a result, plaintiff was reasonably likely to succeed on the merits of her claim supporting an injunction. However, the court refused to enter an injunction directing the state to provide Medicaid during the pendency of the lawsuit. According to the Court, plaintiff failed to 1) demonstrate she would suffer irreparable harm, because she had made lifetime gifts during the 5 year look back period that would result in a penalty period; 2) forcing the state to provide Medicaid during the pendency of litigation but prior to a eligibility determination would harm the State; and 3) it would not be in the public’s interest to compel the state to pay Medicaid prematurely .
The case is annexed here – Flade v. Connolly, 2016 WL 5339725 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2016) (unpublished)
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