MINERVA THOMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the Department of Children and Families' denial of Medicaid benefits, holding that the applicant's lifetime services contract with her daughter constituted valuable consideration under federal law and state regulations.
A transfer of assets for a lifetime services contract constitutes valuable consideration under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(C)(i) when the applicant establishes fair market value for the services provided.
[1] A Medicaid applicant's transfer of assets does not render the applicant ineligible for benefits if the applicant establishes that the assets were transferred at fair mark…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the individual intended to dispose of the assets either at fair market value, or for other valuable consideration”
Federal law and Department regulations governing transfers of assets in Medicaid applications
Minerva Thomas applied for Medicaid benefits under Florida's Institutional Care Program after entering into a lifetime contract with her daughter, whe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Medicaid Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
Minerva Thomas, the appellant, challenges a decision of Florida’s Department of Children and Families denying her application for Medicaid benefits pursuant to Florida’s Institutional Care Program (“ICP”). Prior to applying for these nursing home benefits, Thomas entered into a lifetime contract with her daughter, whereby her daughter agreed to supervise appellant’s health care and to provide personal services to her mother in exchange for $67,725. The Department’s denial of Thomas’ application for ICP benefits was based on its determination that Thomas had received less than fair market value for the $67,725. We reverse.
Both federal law and the Department’s own regulations provide that a transfer of assets shall not render a Medicaid applicant ineligible for benefits, if he or she can establish that “the individual intended to dispose of the assets either at fair market value, or for other valuable consideration.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(C)(i); see also Florida Department of Children & Families Resource Manual § 1630.20.00. During the proceedings below, the only evidence presented was that Thomas had in fact paid fair market value for the services contract; thus, the hearing officer’s finding that Thomas had not received fair market value for the exchange is without record support. We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 835 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…al Med. 251 (1999). Ms. Thompson contends that because her expert witness testimony on fair market value was the only one presented, the hearing officer should have ruled in her favor citing to Thomas v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 707 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The trier of fact, however, may accept or reject all or any part of an expert’s testimony and is in no way bound by uncontroverted expert opinion testimony. E.g., Weygant v. Fort Myers Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 640 So. 2d 1092 (Fla…
-
Loring Brister v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 906 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…urity Income.” See Economic Self-Sufficient Public Assistance Policy Manual, § 1030.0302. . This court and others have relied upon the Policy Manual in deciding whether agency action was appropriate. See Thomas v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 707 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Kurnik v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 661 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); see also § 409.919, Fla. Stat. (2005) ("The agency shall adopt any rules necessary to comply with or administer ss. 409.901-409.920 and all r…