A federal district court rules that a Medicaid applicant who provided the state Medicaid agency with paperwork erroneously showing that her husband had purchased a non-Medicaid-qualifying annuity should be denied a preliminary injunction making her eligible for benefits because she is unlikely to succeed on the merits. Hildebrand v. Lake (W.D.Okla., No. CIV-13-0951-HE, Oct. 18, 2013).
Frances Hildebrand submitted a Medicaid application to the Oklahoma Department of Human Services that included information about two annuities that her husband had recently purchased. The state denied Mrs. Hildebrand's application on August 7, 2013, because the paperwork that she submitted erroneously showed that one of the annuities was assignable and did not name the state as the remainder beneficiary.
Mrs. Hildebrand filed a suit under 42 USC § 1983 claiming that the state violated her civil rights by denying the application, and requesting a preliminary injunction granting her Medicaid benefits. The state opposed the injunction, pointing out that according to the verifications that Mrs. Hildebrand submitted, her husband's annuity clearly did not meet the requirements for an exempt asset because it was, on its face, assignable and did not name the state as the remainder beneficiary.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denies Mrs. Hildebrand's request for an injunction, finding that she is unlikely to succeed on the merits of her case. The court explains that "The 'corrected' annuity, apparently reflecting what the parties originally intended, was not submitted to DHS until, at best, a few days before the injunction hearing and after this case was filed. The result is that there appears to be little, if any, likelihood that plaintiff can prevail on the merits, i.e. establishing that defendants' August 7 denial of eligibility was wrongful. Defendants' decision, and their potential liability under § 1983, must be evaluated based on what was actually submitted to it. . . With the corrected annuities they have now procured, plaintiffs may well elect to submit a new or revised application to defendants. Should they do so, and if a further denial results, the court would expect plaintiffs to exhaust whatever internal appeal or similar remedies are available to them through the state agencies involved, prior to seeking to amend here or to otherwise assert a claim based on such denial."
For the full text of this decision, click here.
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
