ILNews

Medicaid applications review policy doesn't violate federal law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An administrative law judge’s refusal to consider evidence of conditions that aren’t disclosed on a Medicaid disability application doesn’t violate federal law and the Due Process Clause, a majority on the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The judges disagreed in Anne Walterman Murphy, et al. v. William Curtis, et al.  No. 49A04-0909-CV-503, about whether the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment for a class of Medicaid applicants who were denied benefits. The applicants had originally applied for benefits citing one condition and were denied. They then reapplied based on other conditions and at their hearing before an administrative law judge, tried to present evidence on the conditions in the denied applications.

Judges Paul Mathias and Cale Bradford reversed summary judgment in favor of the class and ordered summary judgment entered for the state. They didn’t find the Family and Social Services Administration’s interpretation of the applicable statutes and regulations to be unreasonable, violative of any of the cited statutes or regulations, or constitute denial of due process.

The majority noted that the de novo hearing by the ALJ provided for under Indiana Code Section 12-15-28-4 doesn’t allow for the applicant or county office to introduce additional evidence at the hearing that is unrelated to the conditions in the application being reviewed.

“Furthermore, simply because due process and the applicable regulations require a de novo hearing does not mean that the scope of the hearing must be expanded to include every possible condition that the applicant claims could result in benefits,” wrote Judge Mathias. “A de novo hearing does not require the consideration of materials unrelated to the issue appealed. Otherwise, the need for an initial application and review by the (Medicaid Medical Review Team) would be essentially superfluous.”

Judge Patricia Riley dissented because she believes the current policy used by the ALJ excluding any evidence not alleged in the original application, but that which could establish the applicant is entitled to benefits, violates the basic notions of due process and also an ALJ’s duty in inquire.

“…I conclude that the ALJ’s duty of inquiry is not suspended when the applicant fails to list a particular disability in his or her application or raises it for the first time during the administrative hearing; rather, an ALJ is obligated to investigate the disabling effects of each possible impairment suggested by the record and which may be relevant in order to reach an informative conclusion as to whether the applicant is eligible to receive assistance,” she wrote. “Today’s majority decision falls well short of this goal.”
 

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