ILNews

COA: Expenses apply under penalty period

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman who wanted her out-of-pocket payments to a nursing facility allowed as a spend-down expense, finding the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's denial of her request would penalize her twice.

In Bernice M. Reedy, by her next best friend Mentoria Headdy v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 53A01-0806-CV-294, the Court of Appeals had to determine if Reedy's out-of-pocket nursing facility payments could be an allowable spend-down, or out-of-pocket expense, while she was serving out a transfer penalty period. Reedy entered a nursing home in 2005 and applied for Medicaid in 2006. For one year, her coverage wouldn't include payments for nursing facility services because she had improperly transferred money to become eligible for Medicaid; Reedy would have to pay for her care out-of-pocket during that time. Reedy also received medical assistance under Medicaid but was required to spend-down more than $3,000 a month before Medicaid would cover her other health-related services such as prescriptions.

The FSSA rejected Reedy's request to have her out-of-pocket nursing facility expenses applied toward her monthly spend-down, which was affirmed by an administrative law judge at a hearing.

The FSSA believed Reedy couldn't apply her out-of-pocket expenses while on a transfer penalty period, but there is no statute, administrative code provision, or case that addresses this issue, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. The appellate court's review of the administrative law judge's decision shows no statutory interpretation.

The Court of Appeals examined 405 Ind. Admin. Code 2-3-10(f), which defines which incurred medical expenses submitted to the county office will be credited toward the spend-down; nursing facility services and rehabilitative services are included on the list.

While under the transfer penalty, the spend-down only applies toward Medicaid's coverage of Reedy's non-nursing facility expenses, so the court "fails to see how applying the nursing facility expenses to Reedy's spend-down 'cancels out' the transfer penalty as the FSSA suggests," Judge Barnes wrote.

"Similarly, under the FSSA's approach, being subject to a transfer penalty subjects an individual to an additional punitive measure by effectively raising the spend-down to the amount of the calculated spend-down plus the individual's nursing facility expenses. The State points to no support for this double punishment, and without such we will not impose the extra burden on Reedy," 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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT