Case Law Library

In this discretionary appeal, the court was tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the decision of the Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) that the transfer of a home from an institutionalized spouse to a community spouse after a Medicaid spenddown, but before the eligibility determination was improper under Medicaid law. Also at issue are the penalties under 42 U.S.C 1396p(c)(1)(A) through (E) for improper transfers and whether they apply to this case.

At issue in this Medicaid case is whether an institutionalized individual receiving Medicaid-paid nursing home care lost the right to continuation of such care when, after receiving an inheritance, he immediately transferred the inherited assets to his wife, the community spouse.

The court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly interpreted 42 U.S.C. 12396p with respect to whether a Medicaid applicant's purchase of an annuity was subject to an asset transfer penalty.

At issue is whether the funds held by a community spouse in an IRA are countable resources for purposes of determining their institutionalized spouse's Medicaid eligibility, and whether a new Medicaid eligibility regulation can be applied retroactively to an applicant's already-submitted application.

At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when lifting the stay of proceedings, finding the worth of the institutionalized individual's estate to be greater than at the time of death, and dismissing the cause of action for a constructive trust.

In this case the court is asked to determine whether the Department erred in calculating Appellant's assets by including the contents of Appellant's irrevocable trust as an available resource thereby denying Appellant benefits for medical assistance.

The court was asked to determine whether the corpus of the Irrevocable Trust owned by Appellee, and for Appellee's sole benefit, was an available asset to Appellee and should be included as a countable resource to Appellee for Medicaid eligibility purposes.

In July 2011, Geyen created two irrevocable trusts with herself as Grantor and her children as trustees. Central to this appeal is whether the county and then the commissioner properly denied Geyen's application for Medicaid benefits on the basis that the funds held in the irrevocable trusts established by Geyen in 2011 were "available" to her when she applied for Medicaid in 2019 and thus were required to be counted in calculating whether Geyen met the asset limit for Medicaid eligibility.

A nursing home resident's agent and special representative appealed against the Illinois Department of Human Services' ruling that the assets in the resident's irrevocable trust were available assets that need to be spent down before Medicaid assistance could be granted.

After the Department of Human Services (DHS) required plaintiff to "spend down" the funds in an irrevocable trust before Medicaid would cover her long-term care nursing home expenses, plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court. The Circuit Court in Henry County reversed the DHS's decision, leading to an appeal by the DHS.