County of Bucks v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

County of Bucks v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare

457 A.2d 199, 72 Pa. Commw. 646, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1438

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 17, 1983

DocketAppeal, No. 2504 C.D. 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 457 A.2d 199 (County of Bucks v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

County of Bucks v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 457 A.2d 199, 72 Pa. Commw. 646, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1438 (Pa. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Cbaig,

Bucks County appeals from the determination by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) of the amount of money which the county was entitled to receive from the Commonwealth through the Medical Assistance Program.

This case, and a companion case also decided today, present the same substantive legal issue. We detailed the pertinent facts and fully discussed the questions of law in that case, Lancaster County v. Department of Public Welfare, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 457 A.2d 1001 (1983). We concluded there that DPW had misapplied its own regulation and that the county had presented substantial evidence that DPW’s attribution of investment income to the county home wias improper.

The evidence in both cases was essentially the same. Bruce Moorehead, the associate administrator of the Bucks County nursing home, testified that the home [648]*648incurred substantial losses, even after reimbursement •for tbe.Commonwealth’s share of expenses, for each of the years in question. Theodore Johnson, a certified public accountant who is the finance director of human services for the county, testified that the county is always funding a deficit on the county home.¹ He also testified that, due to the home’s continuous account receivable from the Commonwealth, the county could invest none of the funds it budgeted for the home.² Finally, as the Office of Hearings and Appeals noted in its order, the county home had no control over the disposition of any of the assets in the county general fund.

For the reasons which we set forth fully in the companion case, we reverse the order of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Order

Now, March 17, 1983, the Order of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, dated September 4, 1981, is reversed as it applies to Bucks County.

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

Opinion by

Judge Cbaig,

Bucks County appeals from the determination by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) of the amount of money which the county was entitled to receive from the Commonwealth through the Medical Assistance Program.

This case, and a companion case also decided today, present the same substantive legal issue. We detailed the pertinent facts and fully discussed the questions of law in that case, Lancaster County v. Department of Public Welfare, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 457 A.2d 1001 (1983). We concluded there that DPW had misapplied its own regulation and that the county had presented substantial evidence that DPW’s attribution of investment income to the county home wias improper.

The evidence in both cases was essentially the same. Bruce Moorehead, the associate administrator of the Bucks County nursing home, testified that the home [648]*648incurred substantial losses, even after reimbursement •for tbe.Commonwealth’s share of expenses, for each of the years in question. Theodore Johnson, a certified public accountant who is the finance director of human services for the county, testified that the county is always funding a deficit on the county home.¹ He also testified that, due to the home’s continuous account receivable from the Commonwealth, the county could invest none of the funds it budgeted for the home.² Finally, as the Office of Hearings and Appeals noted in its order, the county home had no control over the disposition of any of the assets in the county general fund.

For the reasons which we set forth fully in the companion case, we reverse the order of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Order

Now, March 17, 1983, the Order of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, dated September 4, 1981, is reversed as it applies to Bucks County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 A.2d 199, 72 Pa. Commw. 646, 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-bucks-v-commonwealth-department-of-public-welfare-pacommwct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack