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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT