Ron M. Landsman initiated cases involving Medicaid rights and benefits. In reverse chronological order, they are:
Richardson v. Hamilton, No. 2:17-cv-00134-JAW, 2018 WL 1077275 (D.Me.Feb. 27, 2018), appeal pending sub nom. Maine Pooled Disability Trust v. Hamilton, 1st Cir., No. 18-1223.
This suit challenges Maine’s policy of imposing penalty periods for Medicaid long term care services on elderly individuals (over the age of 64) who fund exempt pooled special needs accounts. The federal district court granted Maine’s motion to dismiss; the case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Brief for Appellant, Brief for Appellee, Reply Brief for Appellant, and friend of the court briefs from the Special Needs Alliance and from the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Guardian Community Trust are attached, along with the district court’s adverse decision.
After oral argument, the Court asked CMS to explain its position. Its brief and three in response are also attached – CMS Amicus brief, Appellant Brief in Reply to CMS, SNA Brief in Reply to CMS, and Guardian-NAELA Brief in Reply to CMS.
Also attached are amicus briefs filed in two cases presenting the same question, Hutson v. Mosier, 54 Kan.App.2d 679, 401 P.3d 673 (2017), Brief for Amicus National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and Cox v. Iowa Department of Human Resources, Iowa S.Ct., no. 18-0026, Brief for Amicus National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Special Needs Alliance. In Cox, one justice in dissent agreed with the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Special Needs Alliance’s position.
District of Columbia v. Dionne K——, D.C. Superior Court, 2017 LIT 000002, February 2, 2018.
This suit successfully challenged the District’s practice of enforcing Medicaid claims against the estate’s of deceased Medicaid recipients who were survived by disabled children if the child did not reside in the deceased parent’s former home. The resident-in-the-home requirement was held to be illegal, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(2)(A). Attached is the Superior Court order granting the estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment, along with copies of the Motion for Reconsideration, the District’s Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, and the prior Order denying the Motion.
Janigan v. Pane, U.S. District Court for D.C., No. 1:07-cv-00508(PLF), Order, 4-21-2010 – D.C. consented to an injunction that requires full compliance with “PEME” rules. Co-counsel with Cy Smith and William Meyer of Zuckerman Spaeder.
Smith v. Colmers, Balt. City Cir. Ct., No. 24-C-05-007421, Memorandum, 1-18-2008 and Smith v. Colmers, Order, 3-12-2010 – Maryland agreed to pay $16 million in damages to class members and nursing homes for unpaid bills and consented to an injunction that requires full compliance with “PEME” rules. Co-counsel with Cy Smith and William Meyer of Zuckerman Spaeder. Obtained from the Federal agency, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Gale P. Arden letter dated 9-13-2004, a determination that Medicaid beneficiary can use current income to pay old (pre-Medicaid eligibility) nursing home bills with Medicaid covering all of current cost of care.
Walton v. Mariner Health of Maryland, Inc. 391 Md. 643 (2006). Co-counsel, with Benjamin Woolery, for appellant. The Court held that the standard agency-approved nursing home admission agreement did not permit a claim for non-payment against “responsible parties,” personally, who sign a relative in to a nursing home.
D.C. v. Rasmussen, D.C. Superior Court, Admn. No. 1641-00 (Estate of Simmons). Successfully opposed D.C. Medicaid program claim against decedent’s estate for recovery of benefits paid for services provided individual under the “community medicaid” program because of D.C.’s failure to properly promulgate its estate recovery program in its Medicaid State Plan, a Federal law requirement. 2002-2006 In the next four years, successfully opposed D.C. Medicaid program claims against decedent’s estates for recovery of benefits paid for services for the same defect and because of D.C.’s failure to give Federally required notice respecting rights to hardship waiver and prohibition against estates with surviving spouses and disabled children. D.C. changes its policies and practices in 2006.
McGhee et al. v. Secretary, Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al., Maryland Court of Special Appeals, September Term 1999, No. 02837, Order dated December 26, 2000. Settled claim with Maryland Medicaid agreement to come into compliance with Federal law and permit the use of court orders to increase the income and resources of the “community spouses” of married nursing home residents.
Treatment of out-of-state former homes. In 1994, persuaded Maryland Medicaid program to change policy to come into compliance with Federal law and permit nursing home residents to treat out-of-state former homes as exempt former home without loss of residency status for Medicaid eligibility purposes. Results in treating former DC (and other states) residents in Maryland nursing homes to be treated same as Maryland residents with respect to former homes. See “Maryland Medicaid Agrees to Exclude Out-of-State Former Homes,” The ElderLaw Report, 12:2, P. 5 (September 1995).
Comments