On January 7, 2016, R.P.’s stepdaughter applied for Medicaid on R.P.’s behalf. At the time, the case worker asked the stepdaughter to supply certain additional information. However, the stepdaughter testified that the caseworker did not give her a written notice requesting information.
According to Medicaid, it then sent a February 22, 106 letter to the stepdaughter requesting information, and stating that case would remain pending until March 7. The letter included the incorrect zip code, and stepdaughter testified that she never received it. On May 2, the application was denied. The denial letter to the stepdaughter also included the incorrect zip code, but she testified that she received it.
R.P.’s denial was appealed at a hearing in which the stepdaughter and a Medicaid supervisor (who was not involved in the application) testified. The supervisor testified concerning the Medicaid unit’s regular practices, and testified that, based on his review of the file, he “expected” that a written notice requesting information was delivered in person to the stepdaughter on January 7, the day of the application.
Contrary to the stepdaughter’s testimony, the ALJ found that she had “acknowledged” receipt of the January 7, 2016 request for verification, although she did not receive the February 22 notice. The ALJ concluded that the applicant failed to comply with the January 7 notice, and that the application was properly denied. In its final agency decision, the Medicaid Director adopted that determination, stating that “there is no dispute that [the stepdaughter] received” the January 7 request.
On appeal to the Appellate Division, the Director’s decision was vacated and the case remanded. The appeals court noted that the Director’s decision was based on its finding that receipt of the January 7 notice was undisputed, but the record showed otherwise:
Thus, whether [the stepdaughter] received the January 7, 2016 pending notice is a disputed factual issue that neither the ALJ nor the Director decided due to their erroneous and unsupported finding that [the stepdaughter]’s receipt of the notice was undisputed. Because the final agency decision is based on a factual determination that finds no support in the record, we are constrained to vacate the decision and remand for further proceedings.
However, the court rejected the applicant’s other claim, that the agency was obligated to obtain the requested verifications itself: “The controlling regulations do not require that either [the Board of Social Services] or DMAHS obtain all application information on its own.”
A copy of R.P. v. DMAHS can be found here – R.P. v Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services
For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, 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