ILNews

FSSA able to terminate 9-year Medicaid provider contract without cause

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected a company’s argument that its state contract was wrongfully terminated. The company argued it has a property interest in continuing to be a Medicaid services provider.
 
Umbrella Family Waiver Services LLC signed a contract with the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration in 2003 to provide home- and community-based services under the Medicaid program. The agreement included provisions that allowed the state to end the contract for no reason with 60 days notice.

However, when FSSA notified Umbrella the contract was being terminated, the service provider fought back by requesting an administrative review. Umbrella was unable to convince the administrative law judge to rule in favor of its motion for summary judgment and the company was unsuccessful in its request for a review of the summary judgment decision.

Turning to the courts, Umbrella filed a Verified Petition for Judicial Review. After the Marion Superior Court denied the petition and affirmed FSSA’s termination of the contract, Umbrella filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

The denial of the verified petition was affirmed in Umbrella Family Waiver Services, LLC, v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, 49A02-1306-PL-525.
  
The COA did not find merit with Umbrella’s arguments that it has a property interest in continuing to serve as a Medicaid provider. FSSA has discretion in drafting contracts, the Court of Appeals pointed out, so Umbrella did not have a legitimate expectation that the state would provide a reason for the termination. Also, the appellate court found that Umbrella was not entitled to additional processes beyond the 60-day notice requirement.
 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT