in Re Keyes Estate
310 Mich. App. 266
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Michigan amended the Social Welfare Act in 2007 to enact a Medicaid estate recovery program, awaiting federal approval which occurred in 2011.
- Esther Keyes was admitted to a nursing home in April 2010 and began receiving Medicaid benefits.
- In May 2012, Robert Keyes completed a Medicaid application for Esther and acknowledged potential estate recovery.
- Esther Keyes died in January 2013; the Department sought recovery of about $110,000 from the estate.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the estate on notice grounds, and the Department appealed, arguing timely notice was provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of estate recovery notice under statute | Keyes argued no timely notice at enrollment | Keyes contends notice not provided as required at enrollment | Notice proper under 400.112g(7) after eligibility sought in 2012 |
| Effect of enrollment vs. eligibility seeking on notice requirements | Keyes asserts enrollment triggers notice | Department argues notice under 400.112g(7) applies when eligibility sought | Subsection (7) governs notice when eligibility is sought, not enrollment |
| Due process regarding estate recovery notice | Estate asserts lack of notice violated due process | Notice and opportunity to be heard were provided | No due process violation; notice and hearing were provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Elba Twp v. Gratiot Co. Drain Comm’r, 493 Mich 265 (2013) (de novo review of due process and notice principles; factual backdrop for notice significance)
- Gurganus v CVS Caremark Corp, 496 Mich 45 (2014) (statutory interpretation; focus on plain language and context)
- Polkton Charter Twp v Pellegrom, 265 Mich App 88 (2005) (intentional omission when language differs across subsections)
- In re Petition by Wayne Co Treas, 478 Mich 1 (2007) (notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Hinky Dinky Supermarket, Inc v Dep’t of Community Health, 261 Mich App 604 (2004) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Mathews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process balancing framework for notice and hearing)