Case of Hamner

427 So. 2d 1188, 1 Soc. Serv. Rev. 1104
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 23, 1983
Docket82-C-0733
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 427 So. 2d 1188 (Case of Hamner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Case of Hamner, 427 So. 2d 1188, 1 Soc. Serv. Rev. 1104 (La. 1983).

Opinion

427 So.2d 1188 (1983)

In the Case of John C. HAMNER.

No. 82-C-0733.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 1983.

*1189 Joseph A. Donchess, Baton Rouge, for applicant.

Gordon J. Hamner, Houma, for respondent.

LEMMON, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether state community property laws are applicable for purposes of determining income eligibility of an applicant for medical assistance benefits under a state plan which was adopted pursuant to federal statutes and approved for federal financial participation.

John Hamner was admitted to a nursing home after being severely disabled by a brain aneurysm. Hamner's representative applied to the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) for Nursing Home Vendor Payments under the federal Medicaid Program operated by DHHR. Hamner's application was rejected on the basis that his monthly income exceeded the maximum income level of $714 established by Subpart H of 42 C.F.R. § 435 (1980).[1]

After the Appeals Section upheld the decision, Hamner appealed to the district court, pursuant to La.R.S. 46:107(D). The court reversed the denial of benefits and ordered DHHR to approve defendant's eligibility. The court reasoned that since Hamner's retirement income was community property, only one-half of the monthly *1190 benefits should be considered in determining his eligibility, thus making his income fall below the maximum amount. The court of appeal affirmed. 411 So.2d 567. We granted certiorari to review these decisions. 413 So.2d 498.

42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. (1974) authorize federal financial participation in state plans for medical assistance which have been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under this Medicaid program, states may provide funds to persons who need financial assistance to pay the cost of medical care and who would qualify for cash assistance under the Social Security Act or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), as established by 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (1974), but for the fact that they have sufficient income and resources to pay for the essentials of living (other than their medical costs).[2] See generally H. McCormick, Medicare and Medicaid Claims and Procedures §§ 831, 891 (1977). The federal statutes establish certain mandatory requirements for the state plans which are submitted to the Secretary for approval. The program, however, is a joint federal-state program, and the states can impose more restrictive standards than the eligibility requirements established by the statutes.

Once approved by the Secretary, the federal-state medical assistance program is administered by the state. While participation is voluntary, a state which elects to participate must comply with the federal statutes and regulations, including federal eligibility requirements, in order to continue receiving federal funds.

To be eligible to receive medical assistance under the program, a person must be classified as "categorically needy" and "medically needy". "Categorically needy" persons include those who are receiving or who are eligible for SSI benefits for the aged, blind or disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10) (1974). The state plan must provide reasonable standards for determining eligibility for and the extent of medical payments, and the standards must provide for taking into account such income and resources as are available to the applicant. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17) (1974); H. McCormick, § 948. However, as noted earlier, a state may use more restrictive eligibility conditions. 42 C.F.R. § 435.10 (1980).

It is undisputed that the Louisiana State Plan submitted to the Secretary for approval provided that "all conditions of eligibility of the SSI program are applied" as to the "categorically needy" because of being aged, blind or dependent. Therefore, SSI eligibility criteria are applicable to the determination of an applicant's eligibility for benefits under the federal-state program for medical assistance.[3]

Subpart K of 20 C.F.R. § 416 (1980) (pertaining to SSI for the aged, blind and disabled) determines the treatment of income and exclusions from income for purposes of SSI eligibility. Section 416.1101(a) requires that "all of his own income", both earned and unearned, be included in calculating an applicant's income for eligibility purposes.[4]*1191 Further, Section 416.1101(b) provides that countable income determines an applicant's eligibility for SSI benefits.[5] Retirement payments are included in unearned income.[6] As to unearned income, only the amount actually available to the claimant is considered. Section 416.1120.

In the present case, Hamner's unearned income from retirement payments must be considered in the eligibility determination. Hamner's representative contends that only one-half of the retirement payments should be considered in calculating "all of his own income", since Hamner's wife under Louisiana law owns the other one-half of the payments. Resolution of this contention turns on whether or not Congress intended national uniformity in establishing the standards for SSI eligibility (which were included in the Louisiana Plan submitted to and approved by the Secretary).

The legislative history of Public Law 92-603, which established the SSI program, indicates a Congressional intent for national uniformity in SSI eligibility standards. That intent was stated as follows:

"Fourth, the bill would substantially improve the effectiveness of the adult assistance programs under the Social Security Act by providing —
"(1) for replacing the three present State-administered programs of assistance to the aged, blind, and disabled with one combined adult assistance program which would be Federally administered by the Social Security Administration and would have nationally uniform requirements for such eligibility factors as the level and type of resources allowed and the degree of disability or blindness". 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3:4992. (Emphasis added.)

As stated earlier, Louisiana's plan adopted the SSI eligibility standards, which require national uniformity. When DHHR submitted Hamner's application to the federal agency, federal financial participation was denied on the basis that a married applicant with an identical income situation in another state (without community property laws) would be denied eligibility, so that approval of Hamner's application would result in double standards for eligibility.

DHHR originally declined to approve the application on the basis that the applicant did not meet the SSI eligibility requirements incorporated into the Louisiana Plan. Regardless of the ultimate decision of the state courts, the federal agency will not allow federal financial participation in payment *1192 of this particular application.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ouzts v. SEC., LA. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HOS.
880 So. 2d 918 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Estate of Messina v. STATE, DHH
867 So. 2d 879 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Downing v. Comm'r
2003 T.C. Memo. 347 (U.S. Tax Court, 2003)
LM v. State, Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Serv.
659 A.2d 450 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1995)
TORNER BY TORNER v. State
399 N.W.2d 381 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1987)
Torner ex rel. Torner v. Iowa
399 N.W.2d 381 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1987)
Purser v. Rahm
702 P.2d 1196 (Washington Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 So. 2d 1188, 1 Soc. Serv. Rev. 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/case-of-hamner-la-1983.