Posts tagged "Director"

Daley v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, et al.; Nadeau v. Director of the Office of Medicaid (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-092-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12200 SJC-12205   MARY E. DALEY, personal representative,[1]  vs.  SECRETARY OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES & another.[2]   LIONEL C. NADEAU  vs.  DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MEDICAID.       Worcester.     January 5, 2017. – May 30, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Medicaid.  Trust, Irrevocable trust.  Real Property, Life estate, Ownership.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 11, 2015.   The case was heard by Dennis J. Curran, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 23, 2014.   The case was heard by Shannon Frison, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Lisa Neeley (Patrick Tinsley also present) for Lionel C. Nadeau. Brian E. Barreira for Mary E. Daley. Ronald M. Landsman, of Maryland, for National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc. Elizabeth Kaplan & Julie E. Green, Assistant Attorneys General, for Director of the Office of Medicaid & another. Patricia Keane Martin, for National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (Massachusetts Chapter), was present but did not argue. Leo J. Cushing & Thomas J. McIntyre, for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, C.J.  These two cases require this court to navigate the labyrinth of controlling statutes and regulations to determine whether applicants are eligible for long-term care benefits under the Federal Medicaid Act (act) where they created an irrevocable trust and deeded their primary asset — their home — to that trust but retained the right to reside in and enjoy the use of the home for the rest of their life.  The Director of the Massachusetts Office of Medicaid (MassHealth) determined that the applicants in these two cases were not eligible for long-term care benefits because their retention of a right to continue to live in their homes made the equity in their homes a “countable” asset whose value exceeded the asset eligibility limitation under the act.  The applicants unsuccessfully challenged MassHealth’s determinations in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14.  We […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 30, 2017 at 3:13 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cape Cod Collaborative v. Director of the Department of Unemployment Assistance, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-051-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-436                                        Appeals Court   CAPE COD COLLABORATIVE  vs.  DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE & another.[1]     No. 15-P-436.   Barnstable.     January 7, 2016. – May 4, 2017.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Maldonado, JJ.     Employment Security, Partial unemployment, Eligibility for benefits, School bus driver, Judicial review.       Civil action commenced in the Barnstable Division of the District Court Department on April 29, 2013.   The case was heard by W. James O’Neill, J.     David A. Guberman, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Kevin F. Bresnahan for the plaintiff.     MALDONADO, J.  In this case, we consider whether Stephanie Hennis, a full-time bus driver for the Cape Cod Collaborative (collaborative),[2] is entitled to partial unemployment compensation benefits for the three days she did not work and was not paid during the week ending Saturday, November 24, 2012, which included the Thanksgiving recess.  Because we conclude that G. L. c. 151A, § 28A(c), does not bar the payment of such benefits in the circumstances of this case, we reverse the judgment of the Barnstable Division of the District Court Department (District Court), which reached a contrary conclusion. Statutory framework.  We begin with a brief overview of the Unemployment Insurance Law, G. L. c. 151A, so as to put the underlying facts in context.  The fundamental purpose of the statute is to “afford benefits to [individuals] who are out of work and unable to secure work through no fault of their own.”  Connolly v. Director of the Div. of Unemployment Assistance, 460 Mass. 24, 25 (2011), quoting from LeBeau v. Commissioner of the Dept. of Employment & Training, 422 Mass. 533, 538 (1996).  We are required to construe G. L. c. 151A “liberally in aid of its purpose, which purpose is to lighten the burden which now falls on the unemployed worker and [her] family.”  G. L. c. 151A, § 74, as appearing in St. 1990, c. 177, § 340. With respect to employees of educational organizations, however, the Legislature has carved out certain exceptions to the general availability of unemployment compensation benefits.  As pertinent here, G. L. c. 151A, § 28A(c), as appearing in St. 1977, c. 720, § 29, provides that, with respect to services performed for an educational institution, “benefits shall not be paid to any individual on the basis of such services for any week commencing during an established and customary vacation […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Heyn v. Director of the Office of Medicaid (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-043-16)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 15-P-166 Appeals Court EILEEN M. HEYN, personal representative,1 vs. DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MEDICAID. No. 15-P-166. Worcester. February 5, 2016. – April 15, 2016. Present: Green, Hanlon, & Henry, JJ. Medicaid. Trust, Self-settled trust, Irrevocable trust, Distribution, Allocation of payments between principal and income, Power of appointment. Annuity. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 12, 2013. The case was heard by William F. Sullivan, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Patrick Tinsley for the plaintiff. Daniel J. Hammond, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. Patricia Keane Martin, Robert P. Ford, Kathryn E. Szewczyk, & Don J.J. Cordell, for National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (Massachusetts Chapter), amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GREEN, J. We are called upon yet again to review a determination that assets within a self-settled irrevocable 1 Of the estate of Everlenna Roche. 2 inter vivos trust should be treated as available to the trust grantor for payment of nursing home expenses (and, correspondingly, render the grantor ineligible for Medicaid benefits). We conclude that a hearing officer of the MassHealth board of hearings erroneously concluded that the trust at issue permitted its trustee to distribute proceeds from the sale of trust assets to the grantor in certain circumstances. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court affirming MassHealth’s termination of benefits to the plaintiff’s decedent.2 Background. From November 4, 2011, until her death on August 25, 2013, the plaintiff’s decedent, Everlenna Roche, resided at a skilled nursing facility in Westborough. Approximately eight and one-half years earlier, Roche had established the Everlenna R. Roche Irrevocable Trust (trust), and transferred to it title to her home at 10 Baker Way, Westborough, retaining a life estate.3 Upon moving into the 2 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc. (Massachusetts chapter). 3 The defendant makes no argument that the life estate retained by Roche might itself have a value that could affect her eligibility for benefits, stating in its brief that it is “a correct statement of the law under Cohen [v. Commissioner of the Div. of Med. Assistance, 423 Mass. 399 (1996), cert. denied sub nom. Kokoska, by Kokoska v. Bullen, 519 U.S. 1057 (1997),] and its progeny” that retention of a life estate does not render an individual ineligible for benefits. We do […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 18, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Needham v. Director of the Office of Medicaid (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-166-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   14-P-182                                        Appeals Court   MAURICE NEEDHAM[1]  vs.  DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MEDICAID. No. 14-P-182. Essex.     January 14, 2015. – October 20, 2015.   Present:  Katzmann, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ.     Medicaid.  Administrative Law, Regulations, Agency’s interpretation of statute, Agency’s interpretation of regulation.  Probate Court, Judgment, Trust.  Trust, Reformation.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 28, 2012.   The case was heard by Maynard M. Kirpalani, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.     Elizabeth N. Dewar, Assistant State Solicitor, for the defendant. Peter J. Caruso for the plaintiff.      SULLIVAN, J.  This is an appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 30A from a judgment of the Superior Court reversing the denial of long-term care benefits under the Commonwealth’s Medicaid program.  A judge of the Superior Court concluded that the Director of the Office of Medicaid (MassHealth)[2] was bound by an order of a judge of the Probate and Family Court reforming a trust, and was obligated to consider the reformed trust when determining countable assets for purposes of Medicaid eligibility for long-term care benefits.  We conclude that MassHealth is bound by Federal law in making eligibility determinations, that Federal law prohibits recognition of the reformation of the trust within the statutory look-back period, and that MassHealth therefore could not be compelled to consider the reformed trust in evaluating eligibility.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of MassHealth. Background.  The facts of the case are undisputed.  In his February 11, 2011, application for MassHealth long-term care benefits, the plaintiff Maurice Needham[3] disclosed two trusts, one revocable and one irrevocable.  The revocable trust held only the family home valued at $ 412,400, and named the irrevocable trust, of which Needham was also the settlor, as the sole beneficiary.[4]  MassHealth reviewed this and other financial information for purposes of determining whether Needham met the financial eligibility requirements for long-term care under the Medicaid program.  See 130 Code Mass. Regs. § 520.003(A)(1) (2009) (setting an eligibility ceiling of $ 2,000 in countable assets).  The irrevocable trust, also valued at $ 412,400, was deemed countable by MassHealth because a provision of the trust instructed the trustee to accumulate principal and to use it for the settlor’s future needs without regard to the interest of the remaindermen, his children.[5]  MassHealth concluded […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 20, 2015 at 4:28 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

South End Historical Society Gets New Director

Meet the new executive director and find out where former director Hope Shannon is headed next. South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 24, 2013 at 9:41 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,

BRA Director Peter Meade To Retire in January

Boston Redevelopment Authority Director Peter Meade will be retiring in January, stepping down at the same time as Mayor Thomas Menino, the Boston Business Journal reported this week. Appointed to the position in April 2011, Meade, 67, is considered a member of the mayor’s cabinet but also is appointed by the five-member BRA board, so he wouldn’t necessarily be ousted by the election of a new mayor, the article states. But Meade told the BBJ that he is not interested in keeping the job under a new mayor, saying that, “I have a relationship with Mayor Menino that frankly I would never have with another mayor.” Meade also said he had promised his family he would retire, according to the article. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 30, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , ,