ILNews

Arguments set in Medicaid appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

In a case that involves whether Medicaid applicants who were rejected can include information that was not in their initial applications when they appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for March 3 at 9 a.m.

In its July 21 decision in Anne Waltermann Murphy, et al. v. William Curtis, et al., No. 49A04-0909-CV-503, the majority of an Indiana Court of Appeals panel reversed the decision of a Marion Superior judge and found in favor of Anne Waltermann Murphy in her official capacity as secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and Patricia Casanova in her official capacity as director of the Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration.

One of the Court of Appeals judges dissented, writing that she disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that an administrative law judge’s “refusal to consider evidence of conditions not disclosed on a Medicaid disability application does not violate federal Medicaid law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana attorneys who represented the three named plaintiffs – William Curtis, Gary Stewart, and Walter Raines – as well as attorneys for Indiana Legal Services who frequently represent Medicaid applicants in their appeals, have expressed concern that because applicants are unsure of what is needed for successful applications, with or without assistance from a family member or social worker, they should be able to present additional evidence at appeals.

Lawyers in the attorney general’s office who represented Murphy and Casanova argued that in many cases, applicants do have someone who should be able to provide enough information to help with applications.

However, attorneys for the plaintiffs said that while this is sometimes the case, the three plaintiffs’ experiences in a relatively short amount of time led them to believe there were many more examples of failed appeals where the applicants should have been allowed to present more evidence at appeal than what was in the application.

In Curtis’ case, his caseworker advised him only to report his mental health issues and not include his orthopedic problems. Stewart, who applied so he could receive medical attention, which is a fairly common reason to apply for Medicaid, wasn’t diagnosed with his pre-existing condition of congestive heart failure until after he submitted his application. He did not know what was wrong at the time he filled out his application. Raines “either had trouble identifying his illness or he didn’t consider it disabling,” said ACLU of Indiana attorney Gavin Rose, who represents the plaintiffs.

Rehearing "Medicaid applicants facing 'tremendous hurdles'?" IL Sept. 29-Oct. 12, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT