Search

The article reports that according to the U.S. District Court, a promissory note exchange by the Medicaid applicant for the transferred property, is a valid form of Medicaid planning.

The article discusses a court case Sable v. Velez, wherein a group of residents filed a lawsuit in federal district court to enjoin state from counting promissory notes as trust-like devices in New Jersey. It mentions that the applicants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for preliminary injunction. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies both motion since the applicants are not required to avail remedial procedures.

The article discusses the court case Faulkner v. Woodruff in which the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second Division reverses the decision holding that a personal representative may petition the probate court to review the reasonableness of attorney's fees.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Draper v. Colvin regarding the validation of a special needs trust to be a beneficiary under a power of attorney (POA).

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. district court who states that the annuities purchased by the Medicaid applicant for his wife cannot be considered as either assets or income when determining Medicaid eligibility

The article discusses the U.S. district court case Estate of Thouron v. U.S. which deals with entitlements of the estate to refund of penalty caused by the error of attorney.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. District Court issues a preliminary injunction for the District of New Jersey to bar the state from penalizing Medicaid applicants for transferring assets to children with disabilities. Accordingly, applicants must transfer assets into an irrevocable trust to avoid transfer penalty. However, the court provides that preliminary injunction barred the state to impose penalty for the benefit of children with disabilities.

The article reports on the lawsuit against attorney Paul J. Harris for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS') share of settlement to James Ritchea, who was injured when fell of a ladder. CMS paid Ritchea $22,000 for medical services. On the other hand, Ritchea and Harris sued the ladder retailer for $25,000. The U.S. District Court ruled that CMS is entitled to reimbursement directly from Harris because the Medicare Secondary Payer Statue (MSPS) allows recovery from any entity.

The article reports on the violation of the Medicaid agency in Vermont to the rights of a Medicaid applicant. According to a U.S. District Court, the agency violated the applicant's rights by demanding that she and her husband reveal the purpose behind a secured loan that the couple made to their child for which they received fair market value.