Filial Responsibility Rule Means Son, Not Father, Must Pay Legal Bill for Negotiating Medicaid Penalty Reduction

 

A Pennsylvania trial court has ruled that the son of a Medicaid applicant must pay an elder law firm’s requested fee for successfully negotiating a penalty period reduction because the son would otherwise be responsible for paying the nursing home under the state’s filial responsibility doctrine.   Coates, et al., v. Salmon (Pa. C.P., Mont. Cty., No. 2018-16878, June 23, 2021).

William Salmon, Jr., a lawyer, engaged the services of elder law attorney Andrew A. Coates and his law firm to pursue an appeal of an $86,786 Medicaid penalty that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services’ County Assistance Office had assessed against Mr. Salmon's father when he applied for Medicaid nursing home benefits. During their initial meeting, Mr. Coates explained to Mr. Salmon that if the penalty were upheld, Mr. Salmon could be held personally liable to the nursing home for the shortfall in payment pursuant to Pennsylvania’s legal doctrine of filial responsibility. As his father’s agent under a power of attorney, Mr. Salmon authorized Mr. Coates to proceed.  Mr. Coates failed to provide Mr. Salmon a written statement of the fees he would charge.

Mr. Coates ultimately reached a settlement with the County Assistance Office to reduce the penalty from $86,786 to $18,380, a savings of $68,406.  Mr. Coates sent Mr. Salmon a bill for $6,465.89, reflecting an hourly rate of $325 and applying a 15 percent “professional courtesy” discount.  Mr. Salmon refused to pay and requested “something much more reasonable.”

On January 14, 2021, the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Montgomery County, ruled that because there had been no written fee agreement, recovery must be by an action in quantum meruit.  Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned." In the context of contract law, it means  "reasonable value of services performed."  

Mr. Salmon contended that any claim in quantum meruit could be asserted only against his father, and not against Mr. Salmon personally.  Mr. Coates and his firm countered that under Pennsylvania’s doctrine of filial responsibility, Mr. Salmon would have been personally liable for payment of his father's nursing home fees, making Mr. Salmon the beneficiary of Mr. Coates’ legal services and liable for payment. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Coates and his firm for $7,606.64, the amount Mr. Salmon would have owed without the professional courtesy discount. Mr. Salmon has appealed to the Superior Court and in the course of that appeal he filed a Statement of Errors with the Court of Common Pleas. 

The reason this case is interesting because it utilized the law of filial responsibility to reach what was, in the court's determination, an equitable result.  Ostensibly, the father's estate would have been unable to pay the obligation, since the father qualified for Medicaid.  Although the services were performed for the father, contracted for by the father through his agent under a power of attorney, the court used the law of filial responsibility to assign the responsibility for the obligation to the son.  The court even noted that the son understood that he would ultimately be responsible for the father's nursing home bill, and equating that to understanding that he would ultimately be responsible for the attorney's fee. 

The case is also instructive for another reason, and that is that legal contests have costs and sometimes reach unexpected results.  Mr. Salmon probably assumed that the most he could stand to lose was the amount of the bill submitted to him; that assumption would have been incorrect. The Court actually awarded a sum greater than the total bill submitted by the attorney.  Although the attorney extended a courtesy discount on the total sum, the Court, in its judgment, removed the courtesy discount entering judgment for the full fee.  Ouch!