We're sorry, you do not qualify for the 30-day trial because you indicated that you are not an attorney, financial planner or work for a law firm. If this is an error please call us at (866) 267-0947.
If you would like more information on elder law and long-term care planning go to SpecialNeedsAnswers.com.
A roundup of elder law news and practice development articles culled from news sources across the nation during the weeks of September 26, 2023, to October 2, 2023.READ MORE
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holds that a man failed to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy because he did not strictly comply with the company’s rules, ignoring their notice to resolve issues...READ MORE
Provides attorneys with the tools they need to develop their special needs practice and position themselves as a valuable resource for local families and organizations.
Questions or Comments? Click here.
FROM THE KNOWLEDGE BANK
A Minnesota appeals court holds that a penalty period is not appropriate for a Medicaid recipient who transferred funds into a pooled special needs trust because the recipient showed valuable consideration for the transfer by providing evidence of the goods and services he intended to receive from the trust. Pfoser v. Harpstead (Minn. Ct. App., No. 19HA-CV-18-3466, Jan. 13, 2020).
David Pfoser, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, moved into a nursing home after an injury and began receiving Medicaid benefits. When it became clear Mr. Pfoser would not return home, his guardian sold the house and transferred the proceeds to a pooled special needs trust. Based on the transfer, the Medicaid agency imposed a penalty period.
Mr. Pfoser appealed the penalty, arguing that he would use his trust sub-account to pay for goods and services, such as an adaptive recliner and equipment for his wheelchair, which are not covered by Medicaid. The Medicaid agency found that Mr. Pfoser did not receive adequate compensation when he made the transfer and affirmed the penalty period. Mr. Pfoser appealed to court, which reversed the agency’s decision. The agency appealed.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirms, holding that when determining whether a Medicaid recipient “intended to receive fair market value or other valuable consideration in exchange for his transfer of assets to a pooled special-needs trust, the commissioner must consider evidence of valuable consideration received by the recipient before, during, and after transferring assets to the pooled trust.” According to the court, Mr. Pfoser showed valuable consideration by providing “evidence of goods and services he intended to receive after transferring his funds into the [trust] and showed his sub-account would be depleted within two years by paying for goods and services that [Medicaid] would not cover.”
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2020/OPa190853-011320.pdf