903 N.W.2d 800
Mich.2017Background
- In 2007 Michigan enacted the Michigan Medicaid Estate-Recovery Program (MMERP) enabling DHHS to recover Medicaid long-term care costs from decedents’ probate estates for beneficiaries who began receiving such care after Sept. 30, 2007. Federal approval was required before implementation.
- CMS approved Michigan’s state-plan amendments in May 2011 and assigned an effective date of July 1, 2010; DHHS implemented MMERP and began recovery efforts on July 1, 2011.
- DHHS asserted creditor claims against four probate estates seeking amounts equivalent to Medicaid benefits paid from the July 1, 2010 federal effective date through death. The probate courts ruled for the estates; the Court of Appeals allowed recovery only for amounts paid on/after the July 1, 2011 implementation date.
- Key statutory provisions: MCL 400.112g(3)(e) (hardship waiver materials at enrollment), MCL 400.112g(7) (written information to those seeking Medicaid eligibility), MCL 400.112g(5) (no implementation before federal approval), and MCL 400.112k (program applies to recipients who began receiving long-term care after Sept. 30, 2007).
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review to decide whether DHHS complied with statutory notice duties and whether due process or prohibition on retroactive application barred recovery for benefits paid between July 1, 2010 (federal effective date) and July 1, 2011 (implementation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 400.112g(3)(e) and (7) required DHHS to provide written MMERP notice at initial Medicaid enrollment (pre-approval) | Rasmer: statute required written materials describing MMERP at enrollment; absence bars recovery | DHHS: federal approval was prerequisite; program provisions could not be described pre-approval, so no pre-implementation notice duty | Court: No duty to provide MMERP written info before federal approval; DHHS did not violate MCL 400.112g(7) by failing to notify in 2008 |
| Whether the 2013 written acknowledgment satisfied MCL 400.112g(7) | Rasmer: the 2013 form was too vague and insufficient to apprise beneficiaries of consequences | DHHS: the acknowledgment satisfied the statute’s open-ended requirement and conveyed nature/scope of recovery | Court: 2013 acknowledgment met statutory requirement; content was sufficient |
| Whether DHHS unlawfully “implemented” MMERP before federal approval by applying an effective date of July 1, 2010 and recovering amounts paid between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2011 | Estates/Ct. of Appeals: treating backdated effective date as premature implementation that violated MCL 400.112g(5) and due process | DHHS: federal law permits a plan amendment effective date to predate approval; DHHS implemented only after approval and may recover amounts back to the federal effective date | Court: DHHS did not implement MMERP pre-approval; federal rules allow an earlier effective date; recovery as of July 1, 2010 is lawful |
| Whether due process forbids DHHS from recovering amounts paid before beneficiaries received individualized MMERP notice | Estates: lack of individualized pre-enrollment notice deprived beneficiaries of ability to plan and avoid probate; recovery is retroactive and unconstitutional | DHHS: participants have no right to individualized notice of legislative changes; statutory scheme and post-enactment procedures afford constitutionally adequate notice and judicial process | Court: No due-process violation—legislative enactment, MCL 400.112k and MCL 400.112h, and available judicial process provided adequate notice; estates failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Mullane establishes due-process notice standards for adjudications)
- Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (statutory benefit entitlements are property for due process)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (legislature satisfies due process by enacting and publishing law; no individualized notice of legislative change required)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (retroactivity principles for statutes)
- In re Keyes Estate, 310 Mich. App. 266 (Mich. Ct. App. interpretation of MCL 400.112g notice provisions relevant to MSJ disputes)
- In re Gorney Estate, 314 Mich. App. 281 (Ct. App. panel decision permitting recovery only from implementation date; partially reversed)