B.F. is an octogenarian who suffered a stroke causing left-side paralysis. B.F. used a wheelchair, and needed assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). She lived with her long-time friend.
When B.F. became eligible for Medicaid, she enrolled in the State’s then-existing Global Options for Long-Term Care Medicaid program. A managed care organization (MCO) under the GO program approved a State-provided Personal Care Assistant (PCA) for 35 PCA hours per week, five days per week. Four years later, United Healthcare (United) became B.F.’s MCO through Medicaid’s Managed Long-Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) program and her previously-allotted PCA hours continued unchanged.
United then reevaluated B.F.’s need for PCA services. Utilizing the current PCA Nursing Assessment tool (PCA tool), a United case manager and registered nurse (United’s nurse) conducted a face-to-face evaluation of B.F., and determined she only required 19 PCA hours per week, five days per week.
As a result of the reevaluation, the Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), reduced B.F.’s PCA from 35 to 19 hours per week. B.F. then filed an appeal for a Fair Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), objecting to the reduction in PCA hours. Prior to the hearing, another registered nurse (B.F.’s expert) conducted two independent assessments of B.F., and determined she required 40 hours of PCA services per week, seven days per week.
United’s nurse testified at the Fair Hearing on its behalf. Her assessment was based on the PCA tool, which calculated the supervised time needed for ADLs and IADLs, and her interviews of B.F. and B.F.’s PCA aide. B.F. testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of her expert. B.F. detailed her physical limitations, confirming that her condition had not improved since she had begun receiving PCA services.
Based on the assessment performed by United’s nurse, the ALJ determined B.F.’s PCA hours were “properly reduced” in accordance with her assistance requirements. But, the ALJ reduced B.F.’s hours to 21 – instead of 19 – pursuant to the testimony of United’s nurse.
B.F. took exception to the ALJ’s recommendation and appealed to the Director of DMAHS, who adopted the ALJ’s initial decision. B.F. then appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, claiming that DMAHS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
The appeals court affirmed the Director’s final decision, concluding that DHMAS neither acted arbitrarily nor capriciously in reducing B.F.’s hours:
The record developed before the ALJ amply supported the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the Director in rendering her final decision, reducing B.F.’s PCA hours under the regulations. In particular, the Director conducted an independent review of the record, relying on the testimony and opinions of United’s nurse, which the ALJ found more credible than those of B.F.’s expert. Notably, the ALJ increased B.F.’s hours from United’s determination of nineteen to twenty-one based on the candid testimony of United’s nurse, who adjusted her recommendation pursuant to B.F.’s testimony at the hearing. Also, as the ALJ recognized, unlike B.F.’s expert, United’s nurse utilized the PCA tool, in conjunction with a face-to-face clinical appraisal. We defer to the agency’s superior knowledge and expertise in the field.
The case is annexed here – B.F. v. United Healthcare
For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, visit:
For additional information concerning Medicaid and public benefits planning, visit:
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