A Minnesota appeals court rules that the state may not assert a recovery claim against the estate of a Medicaid recipient's spouse under a different statute from the one addressed in the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in In re the Estate of Barg, which barred such recoveries. In re the Estate of Richard L. Perrin (Minn.App.Ct., No. A10-1352, April 19, 2011).
After Richard Perrin died in 2006, the county Medicaid agency asserted a claim against his estate under Minn.Stat. 256B.15 for medical assistance provided to his wife, who had died in 2004. Mr. Perrin's estate denied the claim in its entirety because none of the property in Mr. Perrin's estate had been owned by his wife at the time of her death. Because an almost identical controversy was pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case titled In re the Estate of Barg, both the estate and the Medicaid agency agreed that the outcome in Barg would control the disposition of the county's claim against Mr. Perrin's estate.
In May, 2008, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in Barg, ruling that the state could not recover from the estate of a Medicaid recipient's surviving spouse if, at the time of the recipient's death she did not possess a legal interest in the property being claimed. After the decision was issued, the county re-asserted its claim against Mr. Perrin's estate, this time under Minn.Stat. 519.05(a), which holds spouses jointly and severally liable for medical expenses. The district court disallowed the county's claim (and upheld its decision after the Minnesota Department of Human Services intervened on appeal), reasoning that the county had agreed to be bound by the decision in Barg and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the new claim under a different law. The Department appealed, arguing that collateral estoppel should not apply in the case because the Minnesota Supreme Court never mentioned Minn.Stat. 519.05(a) in the Barg decision.
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota upholds the lower court's ruling, finding that the parties' agreement to be bound by Barg prevents the county from arguing with the results of that case. The court goes on to address the collateral estoppel argument, and, quoting the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Gollner v. Cram (258 Minn. 8, 1960), determines that the state's claim is barred because "[i]t is clear that where an issue is raised by the pleadings, where it is actually litigated, and where its determination is necessarily implied in the [court's resolution of the issues], the doctrine of collateral estoppel may apply regardless of whether any specific findings are made."
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/1104/opa101352-0419.pdf
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,800 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
