Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Cherry v. Sullivan
No. 93-3504 (7th Cir. July 20, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 45808
Description
Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Indiana’s Medicaid Resource Criteria
Abstract
The Seventh Circuit has affirmed the district court’s
judgment that Indiana’s Medicaid resource criteria did not
violate the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA).
Plaintiffs, Medicaid applicants who live in nursing homes, were
found ineligible for Medicaid because their noninstitutionalized
spouses had resources in excess of the $1,500 resource limit.
Plaintiffs claimed that defendant Indiana Family and Social
Services Administration (FSSA) violated MCCA by applying a more
restrictive methodology for computing resources than those under
the Supplemental Security Income Act. The district court granted
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs
appealed. Affirming, the Seventh Circuit cited Mowbray v.
Kozlowski, 914 F.2d 593 (4th Cir. 1990) (Clearinghouse No. 45,170).
In Mowbray, the Fourth Circuit found that Congress did not effect a
repeal of section 209(b) of the Medicaid statute by enacting MCCA.
The Seventh Circuit, finding that Indiana has a legitimate interest
in controlling Medicaid expenditures and in recognizing marriage as
a relationship of interdependence, also rejected plaintiffs’
equal protection challenge. The court noted that it is neither
unfair nor unrealistic to require one spouse to support the other,
in particular to help meet the obligation to pay for family medical
bills.
