COA affirms transfer penalty for nursing home resident

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a finding by the Family and Social Services Administration that an elderly woman was not entitled to Medicaid nursing home benefits in the eight months after she gave $35,500 to her nephew and his wife.

In the case of Lola Austin v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, 64A04-1008-MI-514, Lola Austin appealed the FSSA determination that the payment constituted a transfer. The FSSA’s decision had previously been affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge and a trial court.

Austin moved into the Alzheimer’s Unit of the Whispering Pines Health Care Center in September 2007, during which time her nephew and his wife, James and Julianne Mack, began building an addition onto their home. James claimed that the addition could potentially enable Austin to live in the Mack household. At the end of September, Austin signed a form naming the Macks her attorneys-in-fact.

On November 29, 2007, the Macks, signing both on their own behalf and as Austin’s attorneys-in-fact, executed a “Lifetime Care Agreement” that stated the Macks would provide a variety of services for Austin for the remainder of her life, including grooming, laundry, and personal shopping.

The agreement provided, based on Austin’s actuarial life expectancy and an average cost of $12 per hour for the services and an estimated 15 hours per week to provide them, that the total value of the services to be provided by the Macks was $41,236. However, the Macks agreed to accept only $35,500 from Austin, as that was the full extent of her savings at the time. The Macks immediately used the $35,500 to help pay for the addition to their house.

Austin’s Medicare benefits for residing at Whispering Pines ran through November 2007. On December 12, 2007, James filed an application for Medicaid nursing home benefits with FSSA on behalf of Austin. FSSA denied this application on January 24, 2008, on the basis that Austin’s resources exceeded the Medicaid eligibility limit. On April 18, 2008, James filed another application for Medicaid benefits with FSSA, retroactive to December 2007. James believed the first denial failed to consider that several checks from Austin’s checking account had been outstanding at the time of the first application, and that the cashing of those checks would have lowered her resources below the Medicaid eligibility limit. On May 19, 2008, FSSA generally approved the application. However, FSSA stated that it was imposing a transfer penalty based on the November 2007 payment of $35,500 to the Macks, which resulted in Austin being denied coverage for nursing home benefits from December 2007 through July 2008.

In its affirmation, the COA said that it believed the FSSA and the courts are justified in turning a skeptical eye toward “personal care” contracts and carefully examining whether they truly represent a fair market value exchange for cash or assets of a nursing home resident. The FSSA didn't challenge the agreement itself, but rather argued it did not have a fair market value of $35,500.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?