ILNews

State responsible for costs in relocating Medicaid patients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Family and Social Services must reimburse an Arcadia, Ind., long-term care facility for the costs the facility paid in caring for Medicaid patients after FSSA ended its provider agreement based on the conditions at the facility, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

In Randall Woodruff, trustee, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, on behalf of Legacy Healthcare Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration, Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning, No. 29A02-1002-PL-220, Legacy Healthcare Inc. operated New Horizon Development Center, an intermediate care facility for the mentally disabled from November 1993 to November 2000. It was certified and licensed, and was able to receive funds from FSSA to operate its facility until September 1999 when the FSSA terminated its provider contract after discovering poor conditions and care at the facility. New Horizon didn’t appeal, and continued to operate the facility for another year without a Medicaid provider agreement and to bill FSSA for its services. Eventually the facility went into bankruptcy and receivership, and all the patients were transferred by December 2001.

At issue is who is responsible for the costs New Horizon paid after its agreement was ended and before it went into receivership. The trial court ruled New Horizon was responsible for the nearly $4 million in costs.

But it was the FSSA’s responsibility as the state Medicaid agency to transfer the residents and ensure their safety once the agreement was terminated, and so that agency should bear the costs, the Court of Appeals concluded. The judges cited the State Operations Manual prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to support their ruling.

Once the provider agreement was involuntarily terminated, the FSSA neither accepted primary responsibility for relocating the residents nor paid for their care, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik. The judges rejected the agency’s argument that it couldn’t legally reimburse New Horizon for the care of the Medicaid recipients because the facility was decertified.

“Although there is evidence that FSSA took some initial steps to transfer the Medicaid patients from New Horizon once New Horizon’s provider agreement was terminated, the bottom line is that FSSA left them at New Horizon and let New Horizon pay for them until New Horizon ran out of money, thereby necessitating the appointment of a receiver,” she wrote.

The judge noted it may sound attractive for New Horizon to pay the nearly $4 million because the facility allowed the care of the patients to deteriorate to the point that its contract was terminated, but FSSA’s responsibility to transfer the patients is triggered when the provider agreement is either voluntarily or involuntarily terminated.

The appellate court ordered summary judgment be entered in favor of New Horizon on its quantum meruit claim in the amount of $3.96 million. The judges also reversed the trial court in allowing FSSA to set off the nearly $1 million it owed to New Horizon for breach of contract against the costs FSSA incurred in operating the receivership.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT