Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): financially secure couples from unnecessarily obtaining Medicaid assistance. Morris, 685 F.3d at 929 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 100-105, pt. 2, at 65 (1987), 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 857); see also Lopes v. Dep’t of Soc. Seros., 696 F.3d 180, 188 (2d Cir.2012). Congress directed that a couple’s combined resources are counted in determining Medicaid eligibility for an institutionalized spouse, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-5(c)(2)(A), but the income of the community spouse is not included, id. § 1396r-5(b)(l). See Morris, 685 F.3d at 930. Further, “a couple may convert joint resources—which may affect Medicaid eligibility — into income for the community spouse—which does not impact eligibility — by purchasing certain types of [income generating investments].” Id. at 928; see also Lopes, 696 F.3d at 188 (<HOLDING>); James v. Richman, 547 F.3d 214, 218-19 (3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a spouse was bound by a conveyance of community property to which she was not a party because of her knowledge and acquiescence to the conveyance (B) recognizing the right of a former spouse to seek contribution for payment of community debts not allocated by the divorce decree (C) holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium (D) holding that the employer did not have a plan under erisa where no administrative scheme was required to pay the annuity benefit (E) holding nontransferable annuity for community spouse was not countable resource
Output (English): holding that the employer did not have a plan under erisa where no administrative scheme was required to pay the annuity benefit