Case Law Library

Prior to submitting an application for Medicaid benefits, the community spouse purchased a non-assignable promissory note with a portion of the couple's excess countable resources. Upon review of the couple's Medicaid application, the Department imposed a period of restricted coverage of the institutionalized spouse's benefits after determining the purchase of the promissory note was an improper transfer. At issue was whether the purchase of a promissory note by the community spouse which meets Ohio Administrative Code requirements, should be excluded from the couple's countable assets.

Following the institutionalized spouse's admittance to an Arkansas nursing facility, the couple applied for Medicaid benefits. The Department determined that the couple had resources that exceeded the eligibility limits and denied the application. As a result, the couple purchased two Medicaid Compliant Annuities and submitted a new application. The second application was denied and the Department assessed the institutionalized spouse a period of ineligibility based on the purchase of the annuities. The court was asked to determine if the Department erred in their determination to include the annuities as a countable resource.

As part of their Medicaid spend-down, the community spouse purchased a Medicaid Compliant Annuity. Shortly after purchasing the annuity, the community spouse passed away. As the primary beneficiary, AHCCCS continued to pay for the institutionalized spouse's care and recoup the costs from the continuation of the annuity payments. Following the institutionalized spouse's removal from the nursing home, the contingent beneficiary sued AHCCCS stating that they were not entitled to recover any benefits from the annuity and were certainly not authorized to recover funds from the annuity for benefits paid after the community spouse's death.

A section of Georgia's Medicaid manual was examined in this case to determine whether the state's regulations regarding transfer of resource penalties directly conflicted with federal law. Petitioner purchased a single premium immediate annuity and named her children as the beneficiaries. However, the state of Georgia required that she name the state. When she refused, the agency assessed her a transfer of resource penalty for the purchase price of the annuity. The Petitioner appealed.

Prior to applying for Medicaid, the couple sold their rental house to their son using a promissory note. The state Medicaid agency included the promissory note as a countable resource. As a result, the institutionalized spouse was denied benefits. The couple appealed and the court was asked to determine whether a promissory note that cannot be converted to cash is a "resource" for Medicaid eligibility purposes.

As part of their Medicaid spenddown, the community spouse purchased a single premium immediate annuity. However, the Department included the value of the annuity as a countable resource to the couple causing them to exceed the asset limitations and be denied benefits. The couple sued on the basis that the state's regulation conflicted with federal Medicaid law.

Following the institutionalized spouse's admittance into a full-time care facility, the couple began to reduce their assets by purchasing a single premium immediate annuity. The couple then applied for benefits, but were denied. At issue is whether a community spouse's annuity is unearned income that can be counted as a resource when determining Medicaid eligibility for the institutionalized spouse.

Following submission of her application for Medicaid, claimant was denied benefits due to her annuity not naming the State as the appropriate beneficiary. Once she had updated the contract, she was still denied benefits for the period during she which she applied. As such, the court was asked to determine whether the Division erred in rejecting Claimant's benefits application, and then erred again in affirming that rejection.

The Supreme Court of Michigan issued an important ruling in May of 2019. The case, Hegadorn v. Department of Human Services Director, No. 156132 (2019), addressed whether the principal of trusts for the sole benefit of ("SBO Trusts") the Community Spouse were countable assets for purposes of the Institutionalized Spouse's Medicaid application. The Court held that in this case, the trust principal was not countable for purposes of the application.

On June 30th, 2020, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issued a decision upholding the "Name On The Check Rule."