ILNews

Medicaid applicants facing 'tremendous hurdles'?

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When filing a claim for Medicaid disability benefits, the process sounds straightforward: Complete an application that includes all disabilities that would make the case that you deserve the benefits. If your application is deemed sufficient by a Medicaid Medical Review Team, you get the benefits. If not, you receive a one- or two-page letter that includes information about how you can appeal.

But it’s what the applicant is allowed to present at the appeal that is at issue in an ongoing case that was decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals July 21 and is currently on petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. The most recent brief was filed Sept. 23.
 

medicaid Gavin Rose is lead counsel in a case involving appeals of denials of Medicaid benefits. Jacquelyn Bowie Suess assisted him. They’ve petitioned for transfer. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

In its decision in the case Anne Waltermann Murphy, et al. v. William Curtis, et al., No. 49A04-0909-CV-503, the Court of Appeals found in favor of Anne Waltermann Murphy in her official capacity as secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and Patricia Casanova in her official capacity as director of the Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration.

Murphy and Casanova, represented by Indiana Attorney General Gregory F. Zoeller and deputy attorney general Frances Barrow, have maintained their position that an administrative law judge who hears an appeal of a denied application for Medicaid benefits does not need to consider any information that was not included in the initial application.

“Under the facts and circumstances before us, we cannot say that the FSSA’s interpretation of the applicable statutes and regulations is unreasonable, violative of any of the cited statutes or regulations, or otherwise constitutes a denial of due process. We therefore reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the Class and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the State,” wrote Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Paul D. Mathias. Judge Cale J. Bradford concurred, but the third member of the panel, Judge Patricia A. Riley, dissented with a separate opinion.

In her dissent, Judge Riley wrote, “I part ways with the majority’s conclusion that an ALJ’s refusal to consider evidence of conditions not disclosed on a Medicaid disability application does not violate federal Medicaid law and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“I believe that the current policy used by the ALJ to exclude any evidence not alleged in the original application but which could establish that the applicant is nevertheless entitled to benefits not only violates our basic notions of due process but also an ALJ’s duty to inquire,” she continued. “The very purpose of the Medicaid administrative hearing is to determine an applicant’s eligibility to receive assistance.”

In their petition for transfer filed Aug. 19, attorneys Gavin Rose and Jacquelyn Bowie Suess of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana made a similar argument.

Rose said these particular three plaintiffs – William Curtis, Gary Stewart, and Walter Raines – were named because they had similar ALJ decisions for different reasons after appealing their denials for Medicaid benefits. He said the ACLU included them in the lawsuit based on their particular ALJ decisions because “three cases over a short time span can convert to more in reality.”

In Curtis’ case, Rose said, his caseworker advised him only to report his mental health issues and not include his orthopedic problems. Stewart, who applied so he could receive medical attention, wasn’t diagnosed with his pre-existing condition of congestive heart failure until after his application because he didn’t know what was wrong at the time he filled out his application.

And Raines “either had trouble identifying his illness or he didn’t consider it disabling,” Rose said.

These issues are fairly common, said Adam Mueller, who has handled appeals of denials of Medicaid benefits as a staff attorney for Indiana Legal Services in Indianapolis. While ILS can’t get involved with this case because it is a class action lawsuit, he would speak about what he sees in Medicaid benefit appeals.

Most of the clients who’ve come through his door wanting to appeal filed their initial applications pro se, while some had help from a caseworker, social worker, or family member if they were unable to fill out the application on their own, such as in a case where the person has little educational background, a low IQ, or doesn’t know how best to explain how his or her disabilities would make them eligible for benefits.

“We start by gathering evidence, talking to the client, and determining if we think their case has merit,” Mueller said.

This includes evidence related to the person’s vocational history and medical history.

While he said ILS doesn’t represent every appeal, he did say ILS’ contact information is on the notice applicants receive when they are denied Medicaid benefits and many people find them that way.

If the person who calls them has “any evidence of a disability, we’ll take a look at it. And at least in the Indianapolis office, we end up representing the majority of the ones that come through,” he added.

He referred to an amicus brief filed by Mental Health America of Greater Indianapolis in support of the plaintiffs-appellees, which explains why the issues are misreported in the first place.

The brief’s first point is “… persons with mental illness can be subject to an unwelcome Catch-22 when applying for Medicaid Benefits: the very disorders that cause the Medicaid applicants to be impaired can prevent them from accurately identifying the full extent of their impairments.”

The brief goes on to explain that those who have mental illness may lack the insight to be aware of their own mental illness, and therefore may not consider it something that ought to be reported in an application.

When it comes to not knowing a diagnosis or being misdiagnosed, Mueller said he has seen clients who listed depression because they were given that diagnosis at one point in time, but the person’s psychiatric records may include evidence of bipolar disorder or “a host of other conditions,” he said.

The amicus brief also mentions stigma is not only a challenge in the application process, but “a key challenge in delivering mental health care to persons in need is having the person with the mental disorder overcome the perceived disincentives to seeking treatment.”

“And that could be the one debilitating condition that could prove they are disabled,” Mueller added.

Mueller said that he is aware of some cases where ALJs are willing to accept information not on the application “if they find a nexus between the condition listed and what the evidence is presenting at the hearing.”

In their response to the petition to transfer filed Sept. 13, attorneys for the state wrote “The Court of Appeals correctly held that limiting evidence at Medicaid disability hearings to conditions disclosed in the application does not violate Medicaid statutes or regulations, and is not a denial of due process. … The state reasonably expects applications for assistance to be complete, meaning all disabling conditions or impairments must be reported in the application. Who is in a better position than the applicant to know his or her impairments?”

Attorneys for the state also wrote that the briefs presented by the ACLU attorneys, the amicus brief by Mental Health America of Greater Indianapolis, and an amicus brief by Indiana Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys has “painted an extremely exaggerated picture of ‘the tremendous hurdles that a Medicaid applicant acting innocently will have in accurately reporting all disabling conditions at the time of application.’ … The regulations set out detailed provisions regarding initial investigations of applications for benefits. … Applicants may use authorized representatives to apply for benefits, and the agency will pay for the costs of medical examinations to determine an applicant’s eligibility,” the state wrote.

In their reply to the state’s response, filed Sept. 23, the ACLU attorneys reiterated their position that people with mental illness or physical disabilities are not necessarily in the best position to diagnose themselves, and that they have not overstated the difficulties some applicants face when completing an application for Medicaid benefits.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT