Guardianship Reform Helps, but Planning Shouldn't Wait

Pennsylvania has implemented a Guardianship Tracking System (GTS), a new web-based system for guardians, court staff, Orphans’ Court clerks and judges to file, manage, track and submit reports. The system integrates statewide guardian information, thereby helping to protect Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable citizens while streamlining and improving the guardianship filing process.  Every little bit helps. One of the unstated benefits of making guardianship reporting easier, is that ease encourages filial and social caregivers to act as guardians. 

Of course, a better plan is to adopt an estate plan incorporating "Aging in Place" strategies, appointing and empowering trusted caregivers (not corporate trustees -banks, financial advisers, or attorneys) and preventing court-appointed guardian control of assets. In addition to making it even easier for filial and social caregivers to act on your behalf, such planning makes court-appointed guardianship more difficult and less lucrative for those who might be interested primarily in financial gain. The National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) says it best; abusive guardianships have a distinctive pattern: Isolate- Medicate- Liquidate- Drain the Estate.

Guardianship reform helps, and should be encouraged and applauded. Planning, however, shouldn't wait. 

Click here to read the original Facebook post.

Click here to proceed directly to the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse Blog article.  

Medicaid Applicant Bears Burden of Proof to Rebut Presumption that Joint Account Is Available Resource

Attorneys so often counsel clients not to maintain and hold joint accounts for convenience with persons other than a spouse.  In another object lesson why joint accounts can create legal problems, a Pennsylvania trial court has ruled that a Medicaid applicant has the burden of proving that money in a joint account was not an available resource. Toney v. Dept. of Human Services (Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 2343 C.D. 2014, June 19, 2015).

The applicant, Samuel Toney, had a joint bank account with his son with $41,510.18 in the account. Mr. Toney entered a nursing home and applied for Medicaid.  The state determined that half of the amount in the joint bank account belonged to Mr. Toney, and on that basis,  denied his application due to excess resources.

Mr. Toney appealed the decision, arguing that the amount in the account belonged to his son; the son claimed that the proceeds in the account came from the sale of the son's house ten years prior. The administrative law judge nonetheless denied the appeal, and Mr. Toney appealed to court.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the state's decision, holding that the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove to whom the assets in the account belong. According to the court, "no credible evidence was presented to rebut the presumption that Toney’s share is presumed available to him for purposes of determining the availability of resources for his partial or total support."

In one sense, the applicant's loss in this case might be considered a victory.  In support of the court's decision, the court cited the federal Medicaid regulations at 20 CFR Section 416.1208(c), which provides that "[i]f there is only one [applicant] account holder on a jointly held account, we presume that all of the funds in the account belong to that individual.  In other words, the state could have just as easily presumed that "all of the funds" in the joint account were a resource of the Medicaid applicant.  Hopefully, the object lesson learned, seniors will implement plans for their long-term care, asset management, and estate distribution, thereby avoiding the obvious risks associated with joint accounts for convenience.  

For the full text of this decision, click here.

Appellate Court Rule Approves Short Term Annuities Not Countable Resources For Medicaid

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a Medicaid applicants' short-term annuities are not resources even though the terms of the annuities were less than the annuitants' life expectancies. Zahner v. Secretary Pennsylvania Dept. of Human Services (3^rd Cir., Nos. 14-1328, 14-1406, Sept. 2, 2015).  

In three separate cases, Pennsylvania denied Medicaid applications on the grounds that annuity purchases were unlawful transfers.  Donna Claypoole's husband transferred money to their children and purchased a five-year annuity and a 14-month annuity before applying for Medicaid on Mrs. Claypoole's behalf. Medicaid applicant Connie Sanner also transferred money and purchased a 12-month annuity.  The original plaintiff Anabel Zahner deceased during the case, and was no longer a party  on appeal.

The three applicants filed a case in federal court, arguing that the annuities met the requirements of federal Medicaid law and should not have been considered transfers. All parties asked for summary judgment. The U.S. district court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment with regard to the five-year annuities, but denied summary judgment with regard to the shorter annuities, holding that the term of the annuity had to "bear a reasonable relatedness to the beneficiary's life-expectancy." The court also held that a Pennsylvania statute that purported to make all annuities assignable was preempted by the federal Medicaid law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, affirmed the district court decision that federal law preempts Pennsylvania's law making all annuities assignable, but reversed the decision that the short-term annuities are resources. The court decided that "any attempt to fashion a rule that would create some minimum ratio between duration of an annuity and life expectancy would constitute an improper judicial amendment of the applicable statutes and regulations." The court further held that an annuitant's motive in purchasing an annuity is not dispositive of whether it is a resource.  

The decisions, which are expansive of consumer options in planning for Medicaid eligibility, will likely invite comparison and contrast with the recent Ohio Supreme Court decisions restricting consumer options.  

For the full text of this decision, click here.

Use of Filial Responsibility to Collect a Nursing Home Debt Survives Federal Challenges

The State of Pennsylvania is racking up victories supporting the use of filial responsibility in resource recovery of Medicaid benefits.  Future courts will likely point to the Second Circuit Court's decision in Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices (U.S. Ct. App., 2nd Cir., No. 14-104-cv, June 5, 2015) as a peculiarly important case paving the way for greater reliance upon filial responsibility.  Aside from the fact that the case concerned an effort to collect funds from a Medicaid recipient's family who were residents of another state, the court specifically rejected any claim that existing federal law preempts  state filial responsibility.

The U.S. Court of Appeals held that a law firm that was attempting to collect a debt from a nursing home resident's family did not violate debt collection law when it filed a lawsuit against the family based on Pennsylvania's filial support law.  Joni Eades' mother died owing the Pennsylvania nursing home she resided in around $8,000. The nursing home hired Kennedy, PC Law Offices to collect the debt from Ms. Eades and her father, who resided in the State of New York. Kennedy sent a letter to Ms. Eades, stating that she could be held liable for the debt under Pennsylvania's filial support statute. During a phone call with Ms. Eades, a Kennedy employee allegedly stated that if the debt was not paid, Kennedy would put a lien on her father's house and garnish her wages.

Kennedy filed a complaint against Ms. Eades and her father for failing to pay the debt. Ms. Eades and her father filed a lawsuit in federal court against Kennedy alleging that it violated the fair debt collection law. The district court granted Kennedy's motion to dismiss, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over Kennedy and that Ms. Eades’ obligation to pay the nursing home was not a debt. Ms. Eades and her father appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed in part but remanded  part of the case. The court held that while the court does have jurisdiction over Kennedy and while Ms. Eades' obligation to pay the nursing home was a debt, there was no conflict between the federal nursing home law and Pennsylvania's support law, so filing a lawsuit under the filial support law did not violate the debt collection law.

The court held that federal law did not preempt the Pennsylvania law.  Eades argued that the federal Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA), which prohibits nursing homes from requiring third party guarantees of payment, preempted the Pennsylvania law.  The court disagreed: 

"[T]he NHRA is not inconsistent with the Pennsylvania indigent support statute, which holds an indigent person’s spouse or child liable for the person’s maintenance or financial support, unless the spouse or child is financially unable to support the indigent person or meets other statutory exceptions. 23 Pa. Cons. State 4603(a).  By its terms the Pennsylvania statute does not appear to condition the continuing care of the indigent person on a family member’s financial support. Thus, a nursing home can petition a court to order an indigent resident’s spouse or child to pay for the resident’s nursing home care pursuant to the state statute without violating the NHRA, as long as the nursing home refrains from conditioning the resident’s admission, expedited admission, or continued stay on a third party guarantee of payment. For these reasons, we conclude that the indigent support statute does not conflict with the NHRA."

The court did remand the case to the district court to consider the the issue of whether the phone call from the Kennedy employee to Ms. Eades violated the debt collection law.

For the full text of this decision, go here.

Pennsylvania's Filial Support Law Survives Federal Challenge

Pennsylvania's filial support statute has survived a multi-faceted challenge in federal court. Filial responsibility includes the legal responsibility of a child to care for an indigent parent.  Pennsylvania recently began enforcing its filial responsibility laws, wielding the the legal obligation as a sword in Medicaid resource recovery, in effect requiring a child to reimburse the State for paying through Medicaid the cost of the parent's long-term care. Simply, a child may remain responsible for a parent's long term care costs.  

The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York upheld Pennsylvania's use of filial responsibility in Medicaid resource recovery holding that it was not preempted by  the federal Nursing Home Reform Act, and that collection of a Medicaid  debt created by the statute does not give rise to a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim.  Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. N.Y., No. 12-CV-6680L, Dec. 3, 2013).  Levere Pike, a New York resident, placed his wife in a Pennsylvania nursing home. After Mr. Pike's wife died, the nursing home hired a law firm that attempted to collect payment from him and his daughter, Joni Eades. The law firm eventually filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania that is still pending.

Mr. Pike and Ms. Eades sued the law firm, arguing that the attempts to collect the debt violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). They also argued that Pennsylvania’s filial responsibility law is preempted by the portion of the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) that prohibits a nursing home from requiring a third-party guarantee as a condition of admission. The law firm filed a motion to dismiss.

The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, granted the motion to dismiss, holding the court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Pike and Ms. Eades' claims. The court went on to conclude that even if it did have jurisdiction, debts created by filial support statutes do not give rise to claims under the FDCPA.  In addition, according to the court, the filial support statute is not preempted by the NHRA because the two laws do not "cover the same territory."  Although arguably the decision is mostly dicta, the court's decision illuminates how federal courts are likely to view filial responsibility in the event that more states follow Pennsylvania in applying filial responsibility to Medicaid recourse recovery.

For the full text of this decision, go here.