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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT