Denton v. Perales

195 A.D.2d 506, 601 N.Y.S.2d 821
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 A.D.2d 506 (Denton v. Perales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Denton v. Perales, 195 A.D.2d 506, 601 N.Y.S.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In a [507]*507proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated February 21, 1990, which denied the petitioner’s request for Medicaid reimbursement for the services of a registered dietician, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered November 21, 1990, which remitted the matter to the Dutchess County Department of Social Services, and directed it to refer the petitioner to a dietician who accepted Medicaid reimbursement, or to reimburse the petitioner for the services of a non-Medicaid dietician.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto directing the Dutchess County Department of Social Services to determine the value of the petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred for her dietician as of the date she requested Medicaid coverage to the date of the judgment, and to reimburse her for that amount; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In remitting the matter to the Dutchess County Department of Social Services, the court neglected to include a provision directing retroactive payment to the petitioner for the services of her dietician, which had been wrongfully denied (see, Matter of Schwartz v Toia, 68 AD2d 890; Matter of Lawrence v Lavine, 50 AD2d 734; Matter of Rosenblum v Lavine, 70 Misc 2d 667; see generally, Matter of Denton v Perales, 72 NY2d 979). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Fiber, O’Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fells v. Hansell
77 A.D.3d 941 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 A.D.2d 506, 601 N.Y.S.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denton-v-perales-nyappdiv-1993.