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
Markva v. Haveman
317 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54342
Description
Michigan May Not Calculate Medicaid Eligibility and Benefits Differently for Nonparent and Parent Caretakers
Abstract
The Sixth Circuit affirmed that Michigan’s policy and
practice of calculating Medicaid eligibility and benefit amounts
differently for nonparent relative caretakers and parent caretakers
violated the federal Medicaid statute and its implementing
regulations. Michigan’s policy allows parent caretakers
applying for Medicaid to exclude from countable income an amount
allocated for the care of their dependent children, whereas
nonparent relatives acting as caretaker and applying for Medicaid
may not deduct a similar portion from their income to reflect the
financial needs of the children under their care. Thus, to receive
Medicaid benefits, nonparent caretakers pay a higher deductible or
“spend-down” than parent caretakers. Challenging this
policy, plaintiff-appellees, a class of “medically
needy” grandparents raising their grandchildren in the
absence of the children’s parents, sued defendant-appellant
directors of two state Medicaid agencies under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The district court held that the policy of using different
calculation methods violated Medicaid law in various respects.
Agreeing, the Sixth Circuit concluded that there was no basis in
the relevant statute or regulations to distinguish among
individuals in the “medically needy” “caretaker
relative” group based on financial responsibility or other
criteria and that Michigan’s methodology for determining the
Medicaid benefits of nonparent caretaker applicants was more
restrictive than the pre–July 1996 methodology used to
calculate Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits for the
same group. The court also agreed that defendants’ policy
violated the requirement that states provide equal “amounts,
duration, and scope” of Medicaid coverage to similarly
situated caretaker relatives because the differing calculation
methods resulted in nonparent caretakers being burdened with
significantly higher spend-down amounts. The Sixth Circuit affirmed
the district court’s order permanently enjoining defendants
from using a methodology to calculate Medicaid eligibility and
benefits, including the monthly spend-down amount, differently for
nonparent relative and parent caretakers.
Additional Information
Files
- Complaint
- Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Injunction
- Defendants' Motion To Dismiss
- Plaintiffs' Brief In Opposition
- Brief In Support Of Plaintiffs' Motion
- Defendants' Response In Opposition
- Plaintiffs' Brief
- Defendants' Reply Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss
- Joint Stipulation
- Amended Class Action Complaint
- Defendants' Second Motion For Summary Judgment
- Plaintiffs' Response Brief In Opposition
- Defendants' Reply and Supplemental Brief In Support Of Their Motions To Dismiss
- Second Amended Class Action Complaint
- Brief In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order
- Stipulation To Class Certification
- Order Certifying Class
- Judgment
- Opinion and Order
- Defendants' Brief In Support For Motion For Stay
- Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs
- Plaintiffs’ Response Brief In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion For Stay
- Defendants' Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Stay
- Order
- Opinion
