by making the transfer she did she thought it was an underlying issue is whether or not the gift of income she made in the same and she received it was to be treated as a transfer of assets policy made personal property is based we hadn't anything it's not real property however there were an exception is made under that section the first actually the second of which would be the personal effects of a in africa her client for medicaid which accepts clothing personal effects health household goods and those kinds of things more importantly the first exception of the rule is stated in the policy manual very explicitly money considered as income for a month is not an asset for the same month and there is therefore under that purpose no distinction made between incomes going down and asset transfers as i think erroneous means decided because the actual representation of the expressed policy of the department was made to the person or the approved representative of mysterious whereas the mcdonald case basically dismissed that's true but as far as reliance is concerned the representation was made at the very same person and i think it makes it a much stronger case for purposes of equitable stoppel that the state now can be heard to deny representation they made no two six zero six a state that money considered as in from for a month is not an asset for the same i mean that income given away to another person during the same month is received is not subject as a transfer policy response to your letter income given away during the same month that is received is not subject to the transfer of asset policy and therefore you know i submit that you know first of all we should recognize mr object was more most important i think is the court i think in the god of overlooked five i also yes one hundred slash one dollar seventy part of the element in my administrative procedure act which expressly explicitly states that rule includes an agency statement of general applicability as well as interpretations of those kinds of things so what we have here is somebody more than just a mere ministerial officer interpret what the policy is because he's the chief of the policy period and therefore that expression should be given the effect really of law and it becomes a rule that department should be bound by most import and i don't know that this matters it is there so so three years before she went into care she had a representative and does that mean someone from public aid who was a fison her is what she might do in the future to haul five or i don't understand how a letter in two thousand and one to someone who's her rep i don't know what it means for him to be a representative and i don't know how that  purposes of health care bill in the future that's precisely correct and you know nothing changed during that period of time and it was you know at a later time when then she would become eligible i think relied upon his advice in the letter that he previously made some hears her lawyer for the benefit of an unrelated third party yeah maybe many of them all of mr evans fine yes sir so you know but mcdonald also if you look at the very first words you know it seems to me that the panel their side to you know they perceive some sort of a policy tension and suck to resolve it and the only thing that we brought before the court as well i think i was exactly on point it's we rely on that there's the my point is try to make a distinction between mcdonald's which is that mcdonald's the person who advised this donald on this recall i forget which but the person who advised mcdonald's was not the person to whom that letter had been written to in two thousand and one it's just so happens in this case that letter was written to the same person represents mrs frederick so but that's a distinction without a difference because it's the stoppel issue that was decided to macdonald no fraud or justice in applying the the federal law to the applicant and there's nothing here either that the statements of illinois employees including in letters to people don't necessarily bind the state and certainly not in substance if that would apply here as well the third is that stop was a question of fact it requires a factual record there's no factual record because there's no factual record in this case either stoppel i think we could very easily make the case that any representative who relied on the adult that or it didn't read federal law state law the illinois administrative code or the federal advisory decisions about how to apply this law  eligibility for medicaid but that's not necessarily the asset transfer policy and so when the when caseworkers are looking at an applicant's application and deciding whether persons eligible or not income and assets are divided that way we don't hold things that were received in that month and spend that on with the assumption that it's spent on persons living and not as gifts but that would only apply at the point of application with on all fours this case decided the decision at the end of last year and it should be applied in this case i respect my points i desire to have the supreme court review it if you want to file an appeal a here that's his right but the court should healthcare family services those are the two people who give applicants final history of decisions that bind them in that those are the decisions that come before this court i can understand frustration with complex the a lot in this area i can understand frustration with getting one decision from one lawyer maybe a different decision a different oil that's very difficult with applicants i understand that that's what the last paragraph in mcdonald's points to but in the end the decisions come from the but i was still fully into it jorian left it to take the bus downtown that sort of thing during the first month that i'm in a care facility and eligible for benefits i receive a ten thousand dollars h and i decide to take a tour of europe that month but myself and my granddaughter who just graduated from college and i spend it is that a legitimate living expenses that something on there be penalized for is that a one shot ten thousand hour in here to nz that month i don't even know i was going to get it and i'll wire hands me the check in the office and i say i'm spending it today i'm going to take this tour you're my granddaughter just  neat and i pay for it because i want a particular apartment he won't even talk to me i'm getting benefits and i use that ten thousand bucks there rehab myself they don't give specific opinions on specific cases you have to make this letter of general inquiry and then the response is made of a general interpretation of the rule itself and that's very key because under under those circumstances if they render it opinion or make a new terminations specific case by law it has no binding effect anywhere else but when you make this a general inquiry and then there is an expression made by and i don't know what i counsel gets only the secretary or the director can make these you know that's the first i've ever heard that that the chief of policy europe policy certainly seems a view imbued with the authority to try to determine what the policy that the department hasn't administers means and that's the exact situation in this case and also by age attention to the miller case where you know the whole point of it is is it even if the department's rules are wrong the important part is to apply t but he asked what does this policy mean and he was given a very specific answer to which he relied upon for all of his clients and specifically was referring to the record this case show with respect to counsel suggestion