In re Estate of Centorbi, 2011 Ohio 2267

Centorbi, a Medicaid recipient aged 55 or older, died intestate on Feb. 12, 2007 while benefits were being received.
Diane Fiorille, as person responsible for the estate, filed a relief-from-administration application about 10 months later but did not check the notice box or file the required Medicaid estate-recovery form.
R.C. 2117.061(B) required filing a Medicaid estate-recovery reporting form within 30 days of the application; no form was filed, so the probate court was never informed that notice to the Medicaid estate-recovery program was required.
ODJFS later learned of Centorbi’s status and filed an application to vacate the order releasing assets from administration on Jan. 27, 2009; the probate court denied, and the appellate courts held the claim was time-barred under the one-year limit.
This case asks whether the statute imposes two alternatives (90 days after form receipt or one year after death) and how they apply when no form is filed, and whether Probate Form 7.0 suffices as notice to trigger the 90-day clock.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of R.C. 2117.061(E) two alternatives	Fiorille: only one-year period from death applies	ODJFS: both 90-day after notice or 1 year after death, whichever later; 90-day clock starts when form is received	statute has two alternatives, whichever is later
When does the 90-day clock begin?	90-day clock should start at notification or never if no notice form filed	Clock starts 90 days after the form is received	90-day period does not start until the administrator is notified that the estate may be subject to recovery
Sufficiency of Probate Form 7.0 as notice	Form 7.0 absence may impede notice	Form 7.0 suffices to notify the administrator of estate recovery	Form 7.0 adequately serves as notice for triggering the process
Whether failure to file a form bars recovery	No form filed, but later filing can still occur within 90 days	Without form, 90-day clock never commences and one-year limit applies	Court held that without notice form, 90-day clock does not run; claim timely under alternative until later of events

Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311 (2007-Ohio-4921) (statutory interpretation and limitations policies)
O’Toole v. Denihan, 118 Ohio St.3d 374 (2008-Ohio-2574) (whichever is later concept in multiple-date limits)
Pizza v. Sunset Fireworks Co., Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 1 (1986-Ohio-1) (use of ‘or’ with ‘whichever is later’ indicates alternative time periods)
Spencer Twp., 95 Ohio St.3d 373 (1991-Ohio-???) (interpretation of statutory language referencing time limitations)
Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Haddox, L.L.C., 120 Ohio St.3d 493 (2008-Ohio-6323) (plain-meaning interpretation of statutory language)