ILNews

Justices affirm ruling in dispute between health care facility and FSSA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has affirmed the outcome of a case between Family and Social Services Administration and a decertified intermediate care facility, in which the net result was a wash for both sides.

In Randall L. Woodruff, Trustee, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on Behalf of Legacy Healthcare, Inc.d/b/a New Horizon Develop. Center v. In. Family & Social Serv. Admin., Office of Medicaid Policy & Planning, No. 29S02-1110-PL-598, New Horizon Development Center was certified to receive Medicaid reimbursement from the state. However, an inspection found deplorable conditions and its certification was revoked. The facility operated without receiving federal or state funding for nine months, when the state then appointed a receiver. At issue in the case is whether Legacy Healthcare, which ran the center, is entitled to funding for the care of the patients, after it was decertified, until all the patients could be transferred to other facilities.

The trial court denied restitution for the unpaid months under a theory of quantum meruit, afforded relief under related breach of contract claims, but offset that judgment by the amount the state paid for its receiver. The parties received no net gain. The justices affirmed.

New Horizon couldn’t have reasonably foreseen payment from FSSA for its Medicaid-eligible patients after it was decertified, and the evidence clearly shows that it was aware that decertification would not result in immediate transfer of those patients to other facilities by the state. New Horizon then, can’t succeed as a matter of law in its claim for quantum meruit because it can’t show that it expected payment for any services it might have provided, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

Because FSSA did not have any contractual or equitable obligation to pay the health care costs of the Medicaid-eligible patients at New Horizon during the post-decertification period, there is no bar to the state’s counterclaim for a set-off pursuant to the receivership statutes, wrote Shepard.

The justices did reverse the trial court with respect to its findings on the issue of exhaustion, noting that the facility appealed its decertification through administrative channels and had sought relief in court.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT