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

  • 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

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT