ILNews

Justices take FSSA reimbursement case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a state agency to pay a long-term care facility after the agency terminated its contract with the facility.

In Randall L. Woodruff, Trustee, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on behalf of Legacy Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a New Horizon Developmental Center v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning, Nos.  29S02-1110-PL-598, 29A02-1002-PL-220, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration appeals the COA ruling. After the FSSA terminated its contract with New Horizon due to poor conditions, the appeals court held that the FSSA had to pay New Horizon for the costs of caring for Medicaid patients after termination of the contract, but before the facility entered receivership.

The Supreme Court declined to accept 20 cases for the week ending Oct. 7, with all justices concurring except for Justice Brent Dickson, who voted to grant transfer in Edward Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for the Holders of the First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF17, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-FF17, No. 49A05-1007-MF-452.
 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT