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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT