ILNews

Filial statutes create questions about duty to support

Jenny Montgomery
June 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent Pennsylvania court decision has spurred discussion about when an adult child may be found financially responsible for a parent’s long-term medical care.

The case, Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America v. John Pittas, Pa. Super. Ct., No. 536 EDA 2011, May 7, 2012, brings to light the lack of clarity in filial responsibility laws. In many states – including Indiana – these laws, that are a holdover from England’s Elizabethan era, outline a child’s duty to contribute to costs of a parent’s care if the parent lacks the ability to do so.

jenkins-sarah-mug.jpg Jenkins

Indiana Code 31-16-17, “Liability for Support of Parents,” specifies that if a child is “financially able,” and a parent is “financially unable” to pay for medical care, the child shall contribute to the costs. But with no hard-and-fast rule to gauge financial ability, the law creates some fundamental questions for elder law attorneys.

Pennsylvania’s opinion

In the Pittas case, an appellate panel for the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that John Pittas had to pay his mother’s $92,943.41 nursing home care bills. The court held that the nursing home was able to show that Pittas had the financial ability to pay, based on his annual income of $85,000. But Pittas argued that the court failed to consider his other financial obligations and that his mother has a husband and two other grown children. The Pennsylvania filial responsibility statute, however, makes no mention of such considerations.

“Indeed, while sympathetic with Appellant’s obligation to support his mother without the assistance of his mother’s husband or her other children, we note that if Appellant had desired to share his support-burden, he was permitted to do so by joining those individuals in this case. However, Appellant took no such action,” Judge Judith Ference Olson wrote in the appellate panel’s opinion.

“The case out in Pennsylvania is just astounding to me,” said Faegre Baker Daniels attorney Sarah Jenkins.

The federal Nursing Home Reform Act prohibits nursing homes from requiring payment as a condition of admission, but Jenkins said it appears that states with filial responsibility laws create statutory liability for children.

In caring for children, parents enjoy certain benefits such as claiming children as dependents. And parents may generally expect to save for a child’s future expenses.

“The problem I see with this is children don’t have any advance notice that they might be caring for a parent,” Jenkins said.

The cost of care

In the Pittas case, the mother’s bills accrued after a six-month stay in a nursing home, where she received rehabilitative care for two broken legs sustained in a car crash. While Medicare will cover 100 days of skilled, medically necessary care, it does not cover the day-to-day assisted living tasks that Medicaid does.

“What you’re really looking at is instances of between when a parent runs out of money and when a parent qualifies for Medicaid,” Jenkins said.

Nursing home care is about $5,000 a month, solo elder law attorney Paul S. Ward said, and families are generally not prepared to handle the Medicaid application process. The program’s changing requirements and procedures can easily cause people to lose their eligibility.

In Indiana, people typically apply for Medicaid online through a centralized service center.

“Before the new system came into place, you dealt with a caseworker in a local county office, but now it’s all done with a service center in Indiana, so you’re basically communicating with a fax machine,” Ward said.

Jenkins pointed out that parents of minor children generally have their children insured under their policies, which provides some measure of protection against catastrophic medical costs. But the same is not true for adult children with aging parents.

“You just don’t have that here,” she said of Pittas, “where after the fact the court decides, we’re just going to reallocate to the child because they have a responsibility to pay.”

Interpretation

Ward said the issue of filial responsibility has been a topic of discussion among elder law attorneys recently and no one really knows what “financially able” means in Indiana’s statute.

Charles W. Backs, of the Fort Wayne firm Beers Mallers Backs & Salin, said that according to 42 USC 1396r (c)(5), a nursing home cannot require a third party to sign or be personally responsible for a resident’s expenses. Even a power of attorney could sign on behalf of a parent, but not be personally financially responsible for the costs of care.

“That flies in the face of the statute here in Indiana, and even though the facility can’t require a person to personally guarantee expense, through that section, it is possible for a facility to say, I don’t need you to guarantee it, I can sue you,” Backs said.

Ward was not aware of a case in Indiana in which the filial responsibility statute has been enforced. And Backs wonders if Indiana judges would reach the same conclusion the Pennsylvania judges did.

“I think it really would be against public policy, and it’s pretty Draconian … I don’t know what would happen,” Backs said. “I would think many judges would shoot it down.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Long-term care insurance
    Long-term care insurance may only cover $100 per day AFTER the first 100 days that have been paid by Medicare.
  • LTC
    This is why it is important to consider Long term care insurance. For you and for your loved ones
    • opt out
      How do I legally and enforcably 'opt out' of any care that I am not awake, aware, and able to request for myself, or in my 'right mind', and able to evaluate and express my decisions?
    • Filial support
      A filial obligation imposed upon an adult child can be financially devastating if the child's parent requires healthcare, particularly long-term care, such as in a nursing home, which is typically not covered by private insurance. Some think that a debt incurred by a person should not have to be paid by their children and vice versa. However, a number of states hold that they do, through what exactly are called “filial support” laws. The regulations are resulting in a number of people getting saddled with huge debts and getting stung with lawsuits. Filial support laws put many in debt for care of parents.

    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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

    2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

    3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

    4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

    5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

    ADVERTISEMENT