period thirteen ninety six he's a part age defines assets as including income resources those couldn't be more clear state law follows the federal law in this and says in section five two point one public even though federal and state law compelling because a directive made to workers under a reading might only espouse tells them that absence or not should not include reading is wrong but even if it's correct it doesn't and those that income would not be treated as disqualifying for purposes and that's all that i checked the workers access guy this morning and i saw that it was amended it now says that budgeting purposes that's the way the rules benefit of the star will show that they acted reasonably and it's not reasonable to poll but directive just to state workers off the internet that say that's all i'm looking at this reading it on top of everything else but even if it is read correctly to read it in a way that violates promulgated federal and state law the states interpretation of the federal law is altered by the federal department of search health service that says that but it's not often that it's a directive from someone in the department to lower employees telling them how to process the and what happened in this case is one of our employees apparently noted that this application of this actually is but it seems to me that actually this was an attorney doing this very did his due diligence did exactly what he should've been doing to advise his quiet as to what they should be doing with the hearing and if you look at the end of that hearing the administrative law judge kept the record open for five days to receive that fax and i assure you that that was sent up there why it's not in this record i do not know on the administrative level ok a rule by the department and it's not specific to a point it operates as a rule and has to be fox mr rich was plainly asked i mean the inquiry went to mr har definition of assets income within received nothing the same up and it mr research was asked specifically does that mean when income in a specific month is defined as not being an asset does that exempt from asset transfer policy and he said yes there expressed it so it rises to a level of an interpretation of their own policy manual which is very expressive zero seven oh seven zero two zero six eight is the one that excepts from the definition of an asset income in the same way and that impact is given away in the mischief that happened here is because mrs macdonald is sorting through her affairs and saying  look i will pay privately and deliberately incur a one month penalty by making transfers of assets the old half a loaf thing that's been going on for decades that's how you do it you preserve some assets but what happened was it should come in under the  if your theory is correct what would prevent somebody whose income was ten thousand dollars a month from giving away their income each month of ten thousand dollars qualifying for nursing  to ten thousand dollars with income they would have sufficient income pay their own way it wouldn't qualify well if they give it away that's not how that's an no you can't you can't apply for benefits the same month you make transfers that's wrong again all these penalties were incurred before she ever applied for medicaid so by definition under the system of poverty federalism illinois law is not bound it can even be more generous than federal law but it can be more restrictive than federal law but the point is we look at illinois rules because federal law illinois has appoint an agency to administer the medicaid law in this jurisdiction a single agency and set out in their grief so we start with the fact that yes there is federal law but it's not federal law that applies here and i think it's kind of disingenuous for the department we all recognize and then on february eighth two thousand and six george bush signed into law the deficit reduction act of two thousand and five which wholesale change bodies medicaid rules there was no finger lifted in the state of illinois to implement those rules even though they suggested that they should be done by july first two thousand and seven and august of this year some new rules were finally promulgated is a citizen really supposed to anticipate what the government is going to do but with implementation i don't i don't think that's fair at all and what mrs macdonald it was said we looked at the policies and the policies themselves say citizen be entitled to vote on the express policies that are published by the department saying here's how you're going to be decided that's what mrs macdonald did and federal law is not here and there's a reference made by the state to the state state medicaid man you know that's not a state law you think that's just the federal law saying your state here's how you should develop your medical process and procedures you should follow  that and we have no quarrel with that but why can't the state just be honest and say you know what we want to change the rules and publish them and follow the rules and saying from that one the rules going to be doesn't sell but to pick and choose and to say ok the federal law that you know the judge pushed aside or president bush signed into law in february two thousand and two it says that for example we have a six month look back but they didn't adopt that one it says that they're supposed to determine the initial application of the penalty which is prescribed under the law as of the date an application is made they don't follow that one so none of these things and it's really through the what's called the office of inspector general where some of these cases i'm gone to where you know there are just some worker there that says what i've read federal law i don't think this is where it should be but why can't they just be honest about it and say let's change our rules change policy manual change the workers action could they lose will a state lose medicaid funding persons from the federal government if they don't comply with what the federal box states well no because you know unless i mean this potentially if they were more restrictive than federal law  s with the loss of medicaid reimbursement but the mandate of the the ira was that no later than the end of the legislative the session following the one in which the law was enacted should deadline for the states to implement the poppet illinois did nothing and the legislature even offered them a one year opportunity to install new regulations by emergency  rule they did nothing of that either so all these people out there that are in need of medical assistance were trying to design their fare so that they can get medical assistance or serve a few assets for the children you know are are going by the existing ex pat law which the department has published online that's all this case is about if you look in the mirror case we cited even general counsel to the department says i don't care if the rule that you're publishing is wrong you've got to follow it because that's what the citizenry  mrs mcdonnell seventeen months despite the fact that she did everything exactly this she understood it by looking at the regulations the policy manual workers actually you know this agree that federal law doesn't fact we i don't know how you're going to stick an individual applicant with that rule without changing your roles which administer the medicaid law because we have no obligation to make an application for medicaid to look at federal law point they actually go for basically said well i'm going to have any rules that once because it's you know that would you know perhaps you have someone to come in and challenge and said doesn't comply with federal law but they can make the rules and and but issue of whether or not this really amounts to a situation where it's a species of frog saying this is how your case is going to be decided that you know that in your case we don't like what you did and therefore we're going to just bar and incorporated in your specific case when there is nothing in the policy manual of the workers action guide back that up to the contrary there is a i'm revoked letter by the chief of the policy saying you read to our policy exactly correctly in common very much is not subject as a transfer policy so you can give it away that month and it doesn't affect your benefits of all now that's indicated that state law compels the recognition of the income as an asset it does not to the contrary state law expressly defines income out of the asset  qualification federal law may but we're not concerned about federal law and if the state wants to employ federal law is it not incumbent upon the state to change their ways and  stop playing some sort of a bait and switch operation with people that are coming in asking for medicaid benefits saying you know here's our rules but in your case after the fact after you've made these gifts all these of filed myself so it is a very important issue because you know the deals with some other issues the office of inspector general just piecemeal just borrowing from what they think is applicable law from the deficit reduction act of two thousand and five and implementing them case by case which is if there's anything that can be described as arbitrary capricious surely it's that where a worker you know in office i don't even know the address of it's a call from the local office saying which i do in the situation and they say well federal law requires you to do x y and z so the local worker does it you know they always do it under the guise of well this is all the recommendation now but you know the local office is not going to go zander was the case i was referring to that was recently decided that that basically really goes a little farther than i think you can go more and poindexter say where you know our supreme court always you know we know that was that states have it because of it but they've been very much more generous than the federal law has been for many many years  court did far expressed that there was reliance by mrs macdonald on published rules of the department and that she was entitled to rely upon those published rules miller case where you know it seems to me the general counsel for the department itself has basically said mr macdonald was absolutely entitled to rely upon what i published rules are and if they're wrong we  if it's thirty six sixty months this case these transfers all happened within the year before she died for benefits so i think most of mr young is just bending a lot of frustration with the department for things that aren't this case  i think lays out the power of federal law requires state or the federal law department applies both in figuring out what someone's responsibilities are he argued poindexter against family services those are the people who speak for the agency not the employees below so you know this is a case as i said it's about equitable stuff and i don't think this case comes up to that level