Swanson v. Swanson
2011 ND 74
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Edward Christensen, long‑term resident of St. Rose Care Center since 2004, relied on his nephew Tom Christensen as attorney‑in‑fact for finances.
- In November 2007, St. Rose Care Center threatened eviction unless payments were arranged; Tom Christensen and the center’s administrator agreed to an arrangement.
- The arrangement: Tom would sell Christensen’s California property interests and pay proceeds to the center to avoid eviction.
- April–July 2008: two California parcels sold; $25,000 and $2,500 proceeds were placed in Christensen’s checking account; $23,200 was later transferred to the center.
- July 2008: Christensen applied for Medicaid retroactive to April 1, 2008; LaMoure County determined ineligibility for April–June 2008 due to remaining asset interests and July–August due to proceeds in checking account.
- September 2008: proceeds paid to St. Rose Care Center; district court affirmed DHS decision; Court affirms agency finding that assets were actually available and thus ineligible April–August 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the California property and sale proceeds were actually available assets. | Christensen argues assets were not actually available due to a binding agreement. | DHS contends assets remained available until transfer to the center. | Yes; assets were actually available, disqualifying eligibility April–August 2008. |
| Whether the oral agreement bound Christensen to divest the assets or otherwise affect availability. | Oral agreement bound Tom to pay center; Christensen asserts non‑strong control over proceeds. | Agreement may be illusory; assets still available under rules. | Even if binding, assets were actually available; no error in DHS’s determination. |
| Who bears the burden to prove an asset is not actually available under Medicaid rules. | Christensen argues he carried burden to show non‑availability. | Applicant must prove assets are not actually available. | Applicant failed to prove non‑availability; DHS proper to conclude assets available. |
| What standard governs review of agency findings on Medicaid asset eligibility? | Court applies limited review; upholds agency findings if supported by preponderance of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinholdt v. North Dakota Dep't of Human Servs., 2009 ND 17 (N.D. 2009) (standard of review; actually available assets; burden on applicant)
- Rennich v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 2008 ND 171 (N.D. 2008) (scope of review; preponderance standard)
- Oyloe v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 2008 ND 67 (N.D. 2008) (asset eligibility; rule applicability)
- Estate of Pladson v. Traill County Soc. Servs., 2005 ND 213 (N.D. 2005) (definition of actually available assets; legislative guidance)