ILNews

COA: agency's claim for Medicaid reimbursement allowed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found that a trial court erred in concluding that the Family and Social Services Administration’s preferred claim for reimbursement of Medicaid benefits against an estate was not timely filed.

In State of Indiana ex rel. Family and Social Services Administration v. Estate of Phillip Roy, No. 33A04-1105-ES-246, the FSSA filed a notice of lien in April 2009 against the estate of Phillip Roy after he died in November 2008 for nearly $40,000 in Medicaid expenses incurred by Roy during his lifetime. The estate moved to dismiss the petition. The trial court disallowed the lien because it was invalid and found that FSSA’s claim to recover the benefits was time-barred by Indiana Code 29-1-14-1(d) because it was filed more than nine months after Roy died.

The trial court focused on the part of the statute that says all claims barrable under subsection (a) would be barred if not filed within nine months. But the judge disregarded the language of subsection (a) that says the time limitations apply to all claims filed “other than … claims of the United States, the state, or a subdivision of the state …” The FSSA is a subdivision of the state, the judges found.

Judges James Kirsch and Cale Bradford also rejected the argument by the estate that because an estate wasn’t opened within five months, the estate representatives are prevented from selling Roy’s real estate and using the proceeds or a portion of it to pay FSSA’s claim based on I.C. 29-1-7-15.1(b). The judges remanded with instructions.

Judge Michael Barnes disagreed with his colleagues that subsection 15.1(b) doesn’t preclude the sale of Roy’s real property to pay a debt owed to FSSA.

“To give effect to Subsection 15.1(b), I believe that because FSSA is no longer claiming that it has a valid lien upon Roy’s real property and because his estate was not opened within five months of death, the property cannot be sold to pay FSSA’s claim,” he wrote.

 

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