ILNews

Court of Appeals rules against FSSA

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of an action against the Family and Social Services Administration regarding the denial of Medicaid applications, finding the FSSA relied on an incorrect statute to justify the denial of new evidence supporting a disability claim on the appellate level.

In William Curtis, Gary Stewart, and Walter Raines, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. E. Mitchell Roob Jr., as Secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and Jeff Wells, as director of the Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning in the FSSA, No. 49A02-0801-CV-23, the Court of Appeals found the FSSA wasn't following federal or Indiana's Medicaid statutes that provide if the decision of a local evidentiary hearing is adverse to the applicant or recipient, the agency has to tell the applicant of his right to request his appeal be a de novo hearing.

The plaintiffs in this case allege the FSSA violated due process rights of Medicaid claimants with its policy that prohibits applicants from offering evidence at the appeal hearing that wasn't introduced in the initial application. When the plaintiffs were denied benefits after review of their applications, they requested the review of the denial by an administrative law judge. The administrative law judge wouldn't accept new evidence that wasn't included in the original application.

In its brief in this case, the FSSA doesn't even acknowledge any provisions of Indiana's Medicaid statutes, instead relying on a provision in the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act that allows an administrative law judge to exclude "irrelevant" evidence, Judge Melissa May wrote in a footnote.

"Our own Medicaid statutes explicitly permit the ALJ to receive additional evidence in the Medicaid hearing: 'At the hearing, the applicant and county office may introduce additional evidence,'" she wrote.

Medicaid regulations explicitly refer to a de novo hearing, which allows for the consideration of new evidence. In light of the Medicaid fair hearing regulations, the complaint by the plaintiffs shouldn't have been dismissed, the court ruled.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT