No. 22-957

Laurie A. Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services

Lower Court: Massachusetts
Docketed: 2023-03-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
CVSGAmici (2)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 42-usc-1396p annuity annuity-rules asset-transfer medicaid-eligibility medical-assistance remainder-beneficiary spousal-impoverishment statutory-interpretation transfer-penalty
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-06-13 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in Section 1396p(c)(2)(B)(i) must name the State as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(1)'s transfer penalty

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In determining the Medicaid eligibility of a married institutionalized individual, the assets of both spouses are normally considered. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(1), an institutionalized spouse is penalized (i.e., becomes ineligible for benefits) to the extent the married couple’s assets were transferred for less than fair market value during a specified look-back period. Section 1396p(c)(1) provides that for purposes of this transfer penalty, “the purchase of an annuity shall be treated as the disposal of an asset for less than fair market value unless ... the State is named as the remainder beneficiary in the first position for at least the total amount of medical assistance paid on behalf of the institutionalized individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)1)(F)@). Section 1396p(c)(2), however, lists a number of conditions under which “{aJn individual shall not be ineligible for medical assistance by reason of paragraph (1).” Id. § 1396p(c)(2). One such condition is where “the assets ... were transferred to the individual’s spouse or to another for the sole benefit of the individual’s spouse.” Id. § 1896p(c)(2)(B)(). The question presented is: Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in Section 1396p(c)(2)(B)G@) must name the State as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(L)’s transfer penalty.

Docket Entries

2024-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-28
Supplemental brief of petitioners Laurie A. Dermody, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2024-05-09
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
2023-10-02
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
2023-07-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-26
2023-07-12
Brief of respondent Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services in opposition filed.
2023-05-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 12, 2023.
2023-05-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 12, 2023 to July 12, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-05-11
Response Requested. (Due June 12, 2023)
2023-05-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/25/2023.
2023-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services to respond filed.
2023-04-27
Brief amicus curiae of Massachusetts Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys filed.
2023-03-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 1, 2023)

Attorneys

Laurie A. Dermody, et al.
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
Adam G. UnikowskyJenner & Block LLP, Petitioner
Massachusetts Chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
Patricia Frances Keane MartinSeegel Lipshutz Lo & Martin, LLP, Amicus
Patricia Frances Keane MartinSeegel Lipshutz Lo & Martin, LLP, Amicus
Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Katherine Brady DirksOffice of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Respondent
Katherine Brady DirksOffice of the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Respondent
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Amicus
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Amicus