By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
A probate court can consider whether to make available Medicaid benefits to a protected individual, like a spouse caretaker, prior to the state determining if the person is eligible for Medicaid, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
A probate court must find that the person seeking the order will have property wasted or dissipated without proper management or money provided to support the person in need.
The Supreme Court unanimously held in In re Estate of Jerome Sizick v. Department of Health and Human Services (SC Docket No. 166921) that the probate court can consider the availability of Medicaid benefits before DHHS makes a Medicaid-eligibility determination under certain conditions – the interests of the individual to be protected and the interests of any dependents. A prior Court of Appeals ruling held it would be unreasonable for one spouse to become impoverished for the other spouse to maintain their standard of living.
The court upheld this precedent, in Vansach, and overturned a separate precedent, Schroeder, which limited courts to considering Medicaid-related circumstances if the institutionalized spouse’s nonexempt assets were already diminished to the point that they are under the Medicaid eligibility threshold. There is no such requirement in statute, the Supreme Court held.
In this case, Jerome Sizick applied for Medicaid. His wife, Janet Sizick, had earlier petitioned the probate court for a protective order asking the court to transfer her husband’s assets and the majority of his income to her, citing his dementia and other health problems and the need for funds for her husband’s care. The probate court granted the petition and ordered payment from Jerome’s assets to Janet in the amount of $2,318 per month.
DHHS appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled against Janet’s request to receive assets and support from Jerome under the Schroeder precedent. The case was remanded to the probate court, where again Janet prevailed.
DHHS appealed again, and again the Court of Appeals ruled for DHHS.
“We are not persuaded by DHHS’s contention that overturning Schroeder will allow anyone, regardless of income, to obtain a protective order of spousal support and force taxpayers to pay for nursing-home care through Medicaid,” Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, writing for the court, said. “The approach articulated in Vansach requires the probate court, in assessing MCL 700.5401(3)(b), to evaluate both spouses’ ongoing support needs and consider each of their relative financial circumstances, including whether the community spouse has sufficient assets and income to support themselves.”
Gongwer News Service
A probate court can consider whether to make available Medicaid benefits to a protected individual, like a spouse caretaker, prior to the state determining if the person is eligible for Medicaid, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
A probate court must find that the person seeking the order will have property wasted or dissipated without proper management or money provided to support the person in need.
The Supreme Court unanimously held in In re Estate of Jerome Sizick v. Department of Health and Human Services (SC Docket No. 166921) that the probate court can consider the availability of Medicaid benefits before DHHS makes a Medicaid-eligibility determination under certain conditions – the interests of the individual to be protected and the interests of any dependents. A prior Court of Appeals ruling held it would be unreasonable for one spouse to become impoverished for the other spouse to maintain their standard of living.
The court upheld this precedent, in Vansach, and overturned a separate precedent, Schroeder, which limited courts to considering Medicaid-related circumstances if the institutionalized spouse’s nonexempt assets were already diminished to the point that they are under the Medicaid eligibility threshold. There is no such requirement in statute, the Supreme Court held.
In this case, Jerome Sizick applied for Medicaid. His wife, Janet Sizick, had earlier petitioned the probate court for a protective order asking the court to transfer her husband’s assets and the majority of his income to her, citing his dementia and other health problems and the need for funds for her husband’s care. The probate court granted the petition and ordered payment from Jerome’s assets to Janet in the amount of $2,318 per month.
DHHS appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled against Janet’s request to receive assets and support from Jerome under the Schroeder precedent. The case was remanded to the probate court, where again Janet prevailed.
DHHS appealed again, and again the Court of Appeals ruled for DHHS.
“We are not persuaded by DHHS’s contention that overturning Schroeder will allow anyone, regardless of income, to obtain a protective order of spousal support and force taxpayers to pay for nursing-home care through Medicaid,” Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, writing for the court, said. “The approach articulated in Vansach requires the probate court, in assessing MCL 700.5401(3)(b), to evaluate both spouses’ ongoing support needs and consider each of their relative financial circumstances, including whether the community spouse has sufficient assets and income to support themselves.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
