ILNews

Judges send Medicaid case back for review

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded a Medicaid benefits denial to the Administrative Law Judge because her decision lacked findings of fact making the case mostly unreviewable by the appellate court.

Alesa Pack applied for Medicaid in 2008. Prior to her application, she had been in two car accidents, diagnosed with panic disorder and schizophrenia, and had many surgeries and treatments for her injuries from the accidents. Pack mentioned physical and psychological ailments as her reason for applying. The review team, ALJ, and Family and Social Services Administration denied benefits; the trial court ruled against Pack.

While her appeal was pending, Pack obtained Medicaid benefits, but this issue isn’t moot because the application for benefits at issue covers medical costs from a two-year period during which her newly awarded benefits don’t provide coverage, noted Judge L. Mark Bailey.

In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the appellate court found no error in her decision regarding Pack’s physical condition. The ALJ found basic facts contrary to Pack’s assertions and concluded through a proper application of the regulations that she wasn’t substantially impaired from walking or light office work. But the ALJ barely touched upon Pack’s psychiatric conditions. The ALJ didn’t apply the functional limitation factors set forth in the state’s Medicaid regulations and her use of the record on Pack’s psychiatric conditions was selective, wrote Judge Bailey in Alesa Pack v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 89A05-1004-PL-240.

“We are mindful here of our duty not to reweigh evidence, a function properly assigned to the ALJ,” he wrote. “Yet the ALJ’s findings here leave us without confidence that she weighed Packs’ psychiatric evidence or applied relevant law to that evidence in reaching a decision.”

The judges sent the case back to the ALJ because the decision was issued “without observance of procedure required by law.” The court also addressed the purposes, function, and proper form of findings of fact and conclusions of law in an administrative context because of the number of administrative orders issued each year.

“Yet we are at times confronted with orders that are defective because the agency’s decision lacks support in the record, that do not adequately articulate a basis for the agency’s decision, that recite the contents of evidence presented to an agency without making proper findings of basic fact, or that simply fail to adequately or rationally apply law to found facts,” Judge Bailey wrote. “Failing to follow proper procedures and form for agency orders may reflect an underlying failure to observe due process of law, whether or not due process was actually had by any or all affected parties and whether or not the agency’s ultimate decision is correct.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT