I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 9 8 4 - S CT J O CAROL AL FORD, I NDI VI DUALLY

, AND AS EX EC UT RI X O F T HE ES T AT E O F A RT

HUR RANDALL ALF ORD, DECEAS ED v. M ISS ISS IP P I D IV ISIO N O F M ED IC A ID D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 02/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CY NTH I A L. BREW ER CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: M ADI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT RO NAL D C . M OR T ON A. ELI ZAB ETH W HI TAK ER AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : W I LLI AM H. M OU NG ER CH AR L E S P . QUAR T E RMAN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 25/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s appea l pr es ent s a ca s e of fi r s ti m pr es s i on and r equi r es us t o i nt erpr etthe “s pous al im p o v erishm en t” pro v isi o n s o f the M ed icare C atastrop h ic C o v era g e A ct o f 19 8 8 (M C C A ), codi f i ed at42 U . S. C od e S ect i on 1396r - 5 ( 2006) . Speci f i cal l y, thi s C ourtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherours t at e cou rt s have su bjectm att er j uri sdi ct i on ov er pet i t i on s r equ est i ng rel i ef under

### 2

C h a p ter4 2 o f th e U n ited S tate s C o d e , S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 r-5 , p rio r to a d e ter m in a tio n o f M e d ica id e l i g i b i l i ty . F i n d i n g th a tth e c h a n c e ry c o u rtd i d n o th a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n , we a f f i rm. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . P rio r to filing a n a p p li ca ti o n for M ed icaid, Jo C aro l A lf o rd file d a p e tit io n in chanc ery c ou rtt o i nc r e a s e the c omm un i ty s po us e r e s ou r c e a l l owanc e ( CSR A ) a ndt he m i ni m um m onthl y m ai nt enanc e nee ds al l ow ance ( M M M N A ) under42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1 3 9 6 r-5 . S h e a v e rr e d th a t h e r h u sb a n d , A rth u r R a n d a ll A lfo rd , su ffe re d fro m m u lti p le s cl er os i s , and the maxi m um M M M N A and C SR A al l ow ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi D i vi s i on of M edi cai d ( D i vi s i on) w er e i ns uf f i ci entt o pr eventheri m pover i s hm entonce h er hus band ent er ed a nur s i ng hom e and appl i ed f orM edi cai d. I n i t s ans w er , the D i vi s i on averr ed that no appl i cat i on had bee n f i l ed on beha l f

of M r . A l f

or d forM edi cai d el i gi bi l i ty, and thatthe A l for ds had fai l ed to exh austadm i nis trat i ve rem edies . ¶3. A t a hear i ng on the m att er , M r s . A l f or d’ s couns el as s ert ed the court had j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 4 2 U .S . C o d e S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 r-5 , as w e ll as e q u itab le ju ris d ictio n to ru le o n d o m e stic r el at i ons m att er s . M r s . A l f or d’ s c ou ns e l a l s o a r gued thatunders t at e r egul at i ons , the D i vi s i on w as pr ohi bi t ed f

r om aw ar di ng a gr eat ers har e of re s our ces above the f

eder al m axi m um , but thatthe r egul at i ons r ecogni zed the court ’ s author i ty t o do s o. C ouns el proc eede d t o ques t i on M r s . A l for d and a ce rt i f i ed publ i c ac count antr egar di ng the A l f or ds ’ f i nance s and the pr oj ect ed depl et i on of

thei ri ncome and as s et s onc e M r . A l f or d w as pl ace d i n a nur s i ng hom e. A t th e c lose o f th e h ea ri n g , co u n sel for M rs. A lf o rd req u ested alt ern ati v e re li ef in the form

### 3

o f a q u a lified d o m e stic re latio n s o rd e r ( Q D R O ), tran sfe rrin g M r. A lfo rd ’s r e tirem e n t as se ts i n the amountof

$400, 000 t o M r s . A l f

or d. ¶4. T he D i vi s i on di d not cr os s - exami ne M r s . A l for d or the account ant , m ai nt ai ni ng the c o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n . T h e D iv isio n a rg u e d tha t i t ha d so le a u th o rity a n d ju risd ictio n to co n side r th e m att er, an d tha t th e c h an ce ry c o u rtw as li m it ed to jud ici al rev iew o f th e a g en cy ’s f i nal deci s i on. ¶5. T he chanc ery court f ound that i t had j ur i s di ct i on t o gr ant s epar at e m ai nt enanc e vi a a Q D R O . I tf

urthe rhe l d tha ti tha d n o a utho r i ty t o g r a ntr e l i e f un de r42 U . S. Code Se c t i on 1 3 9 6 r-5 p rio r to th e A lfo rd s e x h a u stin g th e ir a d m in is tra tiv e re m e d ies . M rs. A lfo rd tim e ly f i l ed hernot i ce of

appea l , obj ect i ng t o the cha ncery c ourt ’ s f i ndi ng thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on under42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1396r - 5. ¶6. D ur i ng the pende ncy of thi s appea l , M r . A l f

ord passed aw ay. M rs . A l f or d f i l ed a m oti on t o sub st i tute A rthu r R and al l A l for d, i nd i vidual l y, w i th the exec utr i x o f hi s est at e, Jo C ar ol A l f

or d. M r s . A l f

or d ass ert ed thatthe “D i vi s i on of M edi cai d w i l l , no doubt , ar gue that t he i s s ues bef

or e thi s C ourtar e moot. . . [ but ] the s ol e i s s ue of w hethers ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s i n the C hance ry C ourtt o incr ease C om m un i ty S po use R esour ce A l l ow ance an d M inim u m M o n thly M ainten an ce N ee d s A ll o w an ce rem ains relev an t i n this an d futu re cas es ar ound the s t at e. ” Thi s C ourtgr ant ed the mot i on t o s ubs t i tut e. DI S CU S S I ON I . W HETH ER M R. ALFORD’ S DEATH RENDERS THI S CAS E M OO T.

### 4

¶7 . T h e D ivisi o n asse rt s tha t th e a cti o n is no w m o o t. T h e D ivisi o n arg u es th at M r. A lf o rd fail ed t o ap p ly for M ed icaid b en efit s prior t o his de ath, an d th at th e e x ec u tr ix o f M r. A lf o rd’s estate fail ed to ap p ly “w ith in the ap p rop ri ate ti m e p eriod after his d ea th.” M rs. A lf o rd con c e de s the c on tr ov e r s y i s no w moot , bu ta r gu e s the Courts ho ul d app l y the “publ i ci nt er es t ” exc ept i on and dec i de the mer i t s of thi s act i on. ¶8. T hi s C ourthas rul ed that“ [ c] as es i n w hi ch an actual c ontr over s y e xi s t ed attr i al but the contr over s y has expi r ed att he t i m e of r evi ew , become m oot . ” Mo n ag h a n v. B lu e B e ll, I nc. , 3 9 3 S o . 2 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 6 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). “ T h is C o u rtw ill n o t a d ju d ic a te m o o t q u e s ti o n s .” A l lr ed v. W ebb , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, th e re is an ex c e p tion , an d the m o o tnes s rule w il l no t be a p p li ed “w h en the q u esti o n s inv o lved are m att er s af

f ect i ng t he publ i c i nt er es t . ” I d. W e have rul ed “ther e i s an exc ept i on t o the gene r al ru le a s re sp e c ts m o o t ca se s, w h e n th e q u e stio n c o n c e rn s a m a tter o f s u c h n a tu re th a t itw o u ld be di s t i nct l y detr i m ent al t o the publ i c i nt er es tthatther e s houl d be a f ai l ur e by the di s m i s s al t o decl ar e and e nf

or ce arul e f

orf utur e conduc t . ” S a rtin v. B a rlo w ex re l. Sm ith , 19 6 M i ss. 1 5 9 , 1 6 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 7 (19 4 4 ). ¶9. W e f

i nd thatthi s cas e pr es ents such a m at t er of pu bli c int eres t . A s our curr ent p o p u latio n c o n tin u e s to a g e a n d o u r sta te’ s c o ffe rs b e c o m e m o re stra in e d , w e fin d th a t th is di s put e f al l s w i thi n the publ i c- i nt er es texce pt i on. M edi cai d i m pact s m any M i s s i s s i ppians, and w e ther efor e fi nd i tprudentt o “dec l ar e . . . a rul e f orf utur e conduc t ” r egar di ng the ju ri s d ic tio n o f t h e c o u rt s to in c re a s e th e M M M N A a n d C S R A . I d.

### The Centers of Me dic are and Medi caid Servi ce s ( CMS) i s the f ederal agenc y that 1 

### implements the M edicaidpro gram. SeeCMS website, locatedat htt p:/ /www. cm s. hhs. gov (l as t acc es se d Febr

uar y 22, 2010) . I n 2009, an i ns t i tut i onal i zed appl i cantcoul d have am onthl y i ncome of up t o $2, 022 2 and t ot al r es our ces of

up t o $4, 000. M i s s i s si pp i D i vi s i on of M edi cai d, G ui del i nes f orthe A g e d , B lin d , a n d D is a b le d L iv in g in N u rsin g H o m e s, lo c a ted a t http: //w w w . medi c a i d. m s . gov ( l as tacc es s ed February 22, 2010) ( cl i ck on M edi cai d E l i gi bi l i ty) 

### . 5 I I . W HETH ER OU R TR I AL CO URTS HAVE S UBJ ECT M ATTER J URI S DI CTI ON UND ER 4 2 U. S . CO DE S ECTI ON 1 3 9 6 r - 5 TO I NCRE AS E T HE M M M NA AND THE CS RA P RI OR T O AN AGE NCY DE TE RM I NAT I ON OF M ED I CAI D E LI GI BL I TY . A . B ackgr ound ¶ 1 0 . T h e M e d ica id p ro g ra m is p a rt o f T itl e X IX o f th e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A c t, en a c ted in 1 9 6 5 . 4 2 C .F .R . § 4 3 0 .0 (2 0 0 9 ). It is jo in tly fin a n c e d b y th e sta te a n d fe d e ra l g o v e rn m e n ts t o pr ovi de “medi cal as s i s t ance t o l ow - i ncome per s ons w ho ar e age 65 o r over , bl i nd, di s abl ed, orm ember s of f ami l i es w i th dependa ntchi l dr en or qua l i f i ed pr egnantw om en or chi l dr en. ” I

d. S tat e p arti cipa ti o n i s vo lun tary, an d eac h st ate d eterm ines eli g ibil ity w ith in

“ b ro a d F e d e ra l ru le s .” I d. 1 ¶11. I n or der t o be el i gi bl e f or M edi cai d, the appl i cant m us t m eet cert ai n f i nanci al and nonfi n a n c ia l c ri te ri a . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 13- 115 ( R ev. 20 09 ). M arr i ed appl i cant s w ho r e c e i v e l o n g - t e rm c a r e ( i . e . , i n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e d s p o u s e s ) h a v e s p e c i f i c l i mi t a t i o n s o n th e i ri n c o me a n d re so u rc e s. T h e D iv isio n m u st d e ter m in e th e c o u p le’ s in c o m e a n d re so u rc e s a n d a llo c a te 2 r es our ces betw een the i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e and the comm uni ty s pouse w hen det erm i ni ng

### Th e agen cy w ill calculate th e total amo unt of th e couple’s resources and allocate h alf 3 

### to e ac h spous e ( spous alshare ). 42 U.S. C. § 1396r-5( c) (1) (A) (2006) . In 2009, thismaximum

amount was $109,560. CMS webs ite, 2009 SSI and Spousal 4 

### I m p o v e r i s h m e n t S t a n d a rds , l oca t e d at http ://www.cms. hhs. gov/Me dic ai dEligib ility/D ownlo ads/1 99 8-2 01 0S SIF BR 12 29 09 .pdf (last accessed F ebru ary 2 2, 2 01 0). T he S tate st an d ar df o r the C SRA is th e maximum standard per mitted by f

ederal l aw. Miss is sippi Divi si on of Medic ai d webs ite, Mis si ss ippiDivi si on of M edicaid S tate P lan at 2 6a of Attach ment 2.6-A, loc at ed a t htt p:/ /www. me dic ai d.m s. gov/Mi ss is sippiStatePl an. aspx(l as t acc es se d February 22, 2010) . 

### 6 e lig ib ility . See 42 U . S. C . §1396r - 5 ( 2006) . Thi s det erm i nat i on i s governed by 42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1396r - 5, the s t atut e ati s s ue i n thi s cas e.

B . 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 6 r-5 ¶ 1 2 . Th e s p o u s a l - i mp o v e r i s h me n t p r o v i s i o n s o f th e M CCA a f f e c t th e a l l o c a t i o n o f

i n c o me a n d re s o u rc e s b e tw e e n th e in s titu tio n a liz e d a n d c o m m u n ity s p o u s e s . See 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 6 r-5 (2 0 0 6 ). T h e sta tu te p ro v id e s ru les fo r tre a tm e n t o f in c o m e a n d re so u rc e s d u rin g th e e lig ib ili ty p ro c e s s a n d p o s t- e lig ib ility . Se e id . ¶1 3. I n comput i ng r es ou r c e s f orp urpo s e s o f

e l i gi bi l i ty, the s t a t e a ge nc y mustas s es s the coupl e’ s “t ot al val ue of the r es our ces . ” 42 U . S. C . § 1396r - 5( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( I ) ( 2006) . T he 3 comm uni ty s po us e i s a l l owed t o r e t a i n ac omm un i ty s po us al r es our ce a l l ow ance ( C SR A ) , w hi ch i s excl uded f

r om the el i gibi l i ty cal cul at i on and i s s ubj ectt o a s t atut ory cap. W is . D ep’t of 4 Heal t h & Fam il

y Ser vs . v. B lum er , 534 U . S. 473, 482- 83, 122 S. C t . 962, 151 L . E d. 2d 935 (2002 ) ( ci t i ng 20 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 12 05 ). T he M C C A specif i cal l y defi nes the C S R A as f oll ow s: [ T ] he “c om m uni ty s pous e r es our ce a l l ow ance ” f orthe comm uni ty s pous e i s an amount( i f

any) by w hi ch – ( A ) the gr eat es tof

–P a ra g ra p h (3 ) re late s to “ [t] ra n sfe rs u n d e r c o u rt o rd e rs” a n d p ro v id e s th a t: 5 I f a cour thas ent er ed an or deragai ns tan i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e f orthe s upportof

the comm uni ty s pous e, s ect i on 1396p of thi s t i t l e shall notappl y t o amount s of r es our ces tr ans f err ed pur s uantt o s uch or derf orthe s upportof

the s pous e orfa m i l y m ember(a s def i ned in su b sec ti o n (d)(1 ) of this sec ti o n ). 

### 42 U.S. C. § 1396r-5( f) (3) (2006) . 7 (i) $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 (su b

jec t t o a d

ju stm e n t u n d e r su b se c tio n (g ) o f th is s ect i on [ w hi ch governs i nf l at i on] ) , or , i f

gr eat er( butnott o exce ed the amounts peci f

i ed i n c l aus e ( i i ) ( I I ) ) a n a m ounts peci f i ed under th e S ta te p la n , ( i i ) the l es s erof

( I ) the s pous al s har e com pu t ed unders ubs ect i on ( c) ( 1) of thi s sec t i on, or ( I I ) $60, 000 (s ubj ectt o adj us tm entunder su b sec ti o n (g) o f th is secti o n ), (i ii ) the am ountes tabl is hed unders ubs ect i on ( e) ( 2) of this s ect i on [ Fai rhear i ng pr ovi s i on] ; or (i v ) the am ounttr ans

f er r ed undera cour torderunderpar agr aph ( 3) [.] 5 42 U . S. C . § 1396r - 5( f

) ( 2) ( A ) ( 2006) ( emphasi s added) . M cC orm i ck’ s tr eat i se provi des the f o l l o wi n g e x p l a n a t i o n f

o ru n d e r s t a n d i n g th e s t a tu t e ’ s d e f i n i t i o n o f th e CS RA : Forexampl e, the M edicai d st atute perm i t [ s] the co m m un i ty spo use t o keep a “c om m uni ty s pouse r es our ce a l l ow ance ” ( C SR A ) equal t o the gr eat es tof $12, 000 adj us t ed f

ori nf l at i on orone hal f

of the coupl e’ s re s our ces up t o $60, 000 adjust ed for i nfl at i on . T he st at e m ay al so si m ply perm i tthe co m m un i ty spo use t o r et ai n r es our ces up t o the i nf l at i on a dj us t ed $60, 000 f i gur e. A l t ernat i vel y, by courtorde r , or by dec i s i on of an admi ni s tr at i ve j udge ( w her e addi t i onal r es our ces ar e nec es s ary t o pr oduce i ncome to supportthe comm uni ty s pous e) , the c o m m u n ity sp o u se m a y b e p e rm itt e d to k e e p a g re a tera m o u n t. H a rv e y L . M c C o rm ic k , Medicare andMedicai d C laim s andP rocedu res § 2 8 :17 (4 th ed . 2 0 0 5 ). “[ A n] enhanc ed C SR A w i l l r educe the resource s the s t atut e dee m s avai l abl e f orthe payment o f m e d ica l ex p e n se s; a c c o rd in g ly , the in stitu tio n a lize dsp o u se w ill b e c o m e e lig ib le fo r M e d ica id s ooner . ” B lum er , 534 U . S. at483- 84.In 2 0 0 9 , th e m a x im u m M M M N A w a s $ 2 ,7 3 9 . M iss iss ip p i D iv isio n o f M e d ic a id 6 w ebs i t e, G ui del i nes f

orthe A ged, Bl i nd a nd D i s abl ed L i vi ng i n N ur s i ng H om es , l ocat ed at http: //w w w . m edi cai d. m s . gov (la s t a c c e ss e d F e b ru a ry 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) (c lick o n M e d ica id E li g ibil ity ). 

### The Divis ion all ows the m aximum under fe derallaw. Mi ss is sippi Divis ion of Med icaid web site, State Plan at 4 c o f A tt ac h me n t 2 .6 A, l ocat ed at 

### htt p:/ /www. me dic ai d.m s. gov/Mi ss is sippiStatePl an. aspx(l as t acc es se d February 22, 2010). 8 ¶14. O nce the i nst i tuti on al i zed spou se bec om es el i gibl e, the age ncy mustdet erm i ne the amountof

i ncome “thati s t o be appl i ed mont hl y t o paymentf orthe cos t s of

car e i n the in stitu tio n .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r-5 (d )(1 ) (2 0 0 6 ). In d e ter m in in g th e a m o u n t o f in c o m e th a t is t o be appl i ed f

orthe cos tof

car e, the s t atut e al l ow s var i ous pr ot ect ed amount s t o be deduct ed f r o m th e i n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e d s p o u s e ’ s i n c o me , o n e b e i n g th e c o mmu n i ty s p o u s e mo n th l y i n c o me al l ow ance ( C SM I A ) . 42 U . S. C . § 1396r - 5( d) ( 1) ( B ) ( 2006) . T he C SM I A is calc ul at ed bas ed u p o n the m inim u m m o n thly m a in ten an ce n ee d s all o w an ce (M M M N A ). 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 3 9 6 r5 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e s t a tu t e p r o v i d e s th e f o l l o wi n g d e f

i n i t i o n o f th e CS M I A: I n thi s sect i on ( exc ept

as pr ovi ded i n par agr aph ( 5) ), the “co m m un i ty spo use m onthl y i ncome al l ow ance ” f ora comm uni ty s pous e i s an amountby w hi ch – (A ) exc ept

as pr ovi ded i n s ubs ect i on ( e) o f t h is s e c tio n , the m i ni m um m onthl

y m ainte na nc e ne e ds allowance ( es t abl i s hed under and i n acco rdance w i th p aragr aph (3) ) f or the spo use, excee ds ( B ) the amountof

m onthl y i nco m e otherw i s e ava i l abl e t o the comm uni ty s pous e ( det erm i ned w i thoutregard t o s uch an all o w an ce ). 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r-5 (d )(2 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e M M M N A is e sta b lish e d b y e a c h sta te b a se d u p o n th e o ffic ial p o v e rty lin e a n d a n e x c e ss -sh e lter a llo w a n c e ; h o w e v e r, it is su b jec t to a s ta tu to ry c a p . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r- 5 (d )( 3 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). 6

### 9

¶ 1 5 . T h e l a n g u a g e “ e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n p a r a g r a p h ( 5 ) ” ( i n th e d e f i n i t i o n o f th e CS M I A) r ef er ence s the f

ol l ow i ng pr ovi s i on, w hi ch i s al s o r el evantt o thi s cas e: ( 5) C ourt ordere d support If a co u rtha s en tered an ord er ag ains t an i n sti tuti o n ali ze d spo u se f o r m o n th ly in c o m e fo r th e su p p o rt o f th e co m m u n ity sp o u se , th e co m m u n ity sp o u se m o n th ly in c o m e a llo w a n c e fo r th e sp o u se sh a ll n o t be les s th a n the a m o u n t o f th e m o n th ly i ncome so or der ed. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r- 5 (d )( 5 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ). ¶1 6 . T h e d efin it ion o f th e C S M IA refere n ce s an o ther relev an t p rov isi o n , su b sec ti o n (e)(2), w hi ch i s the f

ai r - hear i ng pr ovi s i on: ( 2) Fai r he ar i ng ( A ) I n general If e ith e r th e in stitu tio n a lize d sp o u se o r th e c o m m u n ity sp o u se is di s s at i s f i ed w i th the det erm i nat i on of – ( i ) the comm uni ty s pous e mont hl y i ncome al l ow ance ; ( i i ) the am ountof

the mont hl y i ncome otherw i s e ava i l abl e t o the c o m m u n ity sp o u se (a s a p p lied u n d e r su b se c tio n (d )(2 )(B ) o f th is s ect i on; ( i i i ) the comput at i on of the s pousal shar e of

r es our ces under s ubs ect i on ( c) ( 1) of

thi s s ect i on; (iv ) th e a ttribu tio n o f re so u rc e s u n d e r su b se c tio n (c )(2 ) o f th is s ect i on; or ( v) the det erm i nat i on of

t he com m uni ty spous e r es our ce a l l ow ance (a s d e fin e d in su b se c tio n (f)(2 ) o f th is s e c tio n ); s uch s pous e is ent i t l ed to a f ai rheari ng des cr i bed i n s ect i on 1396a( a) ( 3) of

thi s t i t l e w i th r es pectt o such det erm i nat i on i f an appl i cat i on f

orbenef i t s underthis s ubchapterhas been m ade on beh alf of the inst i tuti on ali

zed spou se . A ny s uch hea r i ng r es pect i ng the det erm i nat i on of

the comm uni ty s pous e r esour ce a l l ow ance s hal l b e h e l d w i thi n 30 d a ys o f the d a t e o f

the r e qu e s tf

ort he h e a ri n g . (B ) R evi s ion of m inim um m onthl

y needs al

low ance I f ei thersuch s pous e es t abl i s hes t hatt he com m uni ty s pous e nee ds i ncome, above the l evel otherw i s e provided by the mi ni m um m onthl y m ai nt enanc e nee ds al l ow ance , due t o except i onal

### 10 c irc u m sta n c e s re su lti n g in sig n ifica n t fi n a n c ial d istre ss , the re sh a ll be s ubst i tut ed, f

orthe mi ni m um m onthl y m ai nt enanc e nee ds al l ow ance i n s ubs ect i on ( d) ( 2) ( A ) of thi s s ect i on, an amount adequa t e t o pr ovi de s uch addi t i onal i ncome as i s nece s s ary. (C ) R evi s ion of the com m unit

y s pouse r es ourc e al

low ance If ei ther such spo use est abli shes that the co m m un i ty spo use r es our ce al l ow ance ( i n r el at i on t o the amountof i ncome gener at ed b y su ch an all o w an ce ) i s ina d eq u ate to ra ise th e c o m m u n ity s pous e’ s i ncome t o the mi ni m um m onthl y m ai nt enance ne eds al l ow ance, there shall be sub st i tuted, forthe co m m un i ty spo use r es our ce a l l ow ance unders ubs ect i on ( f ) ( 2) of thi s s ect i on , an amountadequa t e t o pr ovi de s uch a mi ni mum monthl y m ai nt enanc e needs al l ow ance . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r- 5 (e )( 2 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

C . M eri t s of the C ase ¶1 7. W hen r evi e w i ng a n i s s ue o f s ub j e c tmatt e rj ur i s di c t i on , thi s Courtappl i es a de novo s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . Schm idt v. Catholic D ioces e of

B iloxi , 1 8 S o . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). ¶ 1 8 . M rs. A lfo rd c o n ten d s th a t th e “ u n a m b ig u o u s” la n g u a g e o f th e M C C A p ro v id e s o u r sta te c o u rt s w ith a u th o ri ty to in c re a s e th e C S R A a n d th e M M M N A . M r s . Al f or d po i nt s t o 4 2 U. S. C o d e S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 r-5 (d )(5 ) a n d 4 2 U .S . C o d e S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 r-5 (f)(3 ) in su p p o rt o f h e r a rg u m e n t. A s not ed supra , tho se p ro v isio n s p ro v id e th a t: ( 5) C ourt ordere d support If a c o u rt has enter ed a n o rd e r a g a in st a n in stitu tio n a liz e d s p o u se fo r m o n th ly in c o m e fo r th e su p p o rt o f th e c o m m u n ity s p o u se , th e c o m m u n ity sp o u se m o n th ly in c o m e a llo w a n c e fo r th e sp o u se sh a ll n o t b e les s th a n the am o u n t of th e m o n th ly i ncome so or der ed. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 r- 5 (d )( 5 ) ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ( 3) T rans f

ers und er c ourt orders If a c o u rt has enter ed an o rde r ag ains t an in sti tuti o n ali ze d sp o u se fo r th e su p p o rt o f th e c o m m u n ity sp o u se , se c tio n 1 3 9 6 p o f th is titl e sh a ll n o t ap p ly to a m o u n ts

### 11

of resources tr ans f

err ed pur s uantt o s uch or derf orthe s upportof

the s pous e or a fa m il y m em b er (as d efine d in su b sec ti o n (d)(1 ) of this sec ti o n ). 42 U. S. C. § 1 39 6r - 5( f

) ( 3) ( 20 06 ) ( e mpha s i s a dd e d) . M r s . Al f or d a r gu e s tha tthe phr as e “ha s e n ter e d ” in d ica tes th a t a c o u rt o rd e r m u st b e e n ter e d p rio r to a n a p p lica tio n fo r M e d ica id benef i t s . She as s ert s that42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1396r - 5 pr ov i des for tw o, al t ernat i ve m echa ni s m s f

ori ncr eas i ng the M M M N A and C SR A : (1) b y cou rtorde rpr i ort o f i l i ng a M e d i c a i d a p p l i c a t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) f i l i n g a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rM e d i c a i d a n d i n c r e a s i n g t h e M M M NA an d C S R A thro u g h the fair-he aring p roc ess u n d er 4 2 U . S . C o d e S ec ti o n 1 3 9 6 r-5(e). In su p p o rt of her ar gu m ent, M rs . A l for d cit es B lum ber g v. T ennes s ee D epar t

m ent of Hum an Serv ices , 20 00 W L 1586454 ( T enn C t . A pp. O ct . 25, 2000) , and M . E. F. v. A. B. F. , 925 A . 2d 12 (N . J. S u p er. C t. A p p . D iv. 20 0 7 ). ¶19. I n B lu m berg , the p lain tiff filed a p e tit io n in c irc u it c o u rt r e q u e stin g a tra n sfe r o f h is w if e ’s a s s e ts a n d a n in c re a s e in th e M M M N A . B lu m berg , 20 0 0 W L 1 5 8 6 4 5 4 at *1 . T h e c o u rt o rd e re d th e p lain tiff’s w ife to p a y a ll o f h e r m o n th ly in c o m e to h e r h u sb a n d a s a “ c o m m u n ity s pous e al l ow ance . ” I

d . T h e re a fte r, th e p lain tiff filed a M e d ica id a p p lica tio n o n b e h a lf o f h is w if e . I d . W h ile h is w ife w a s a p p ro v e d fo r M e d ic a id , th e p lain tiff w a s d e n ied a n in c re a se in h is in c o m e a llo c a tio n . I d. T he agency or der ed thatthe w i f e’ s m onthl y i ncome w as t o be a p p lie d to h e r c o s t o f c a re . I d. ¶ 2 0 . O n a p p e a l, th e T e n n e ss e e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e ter m in e d th a t th e a g e n c y h a d e x c e e d e d its ju ri s d ic tio n b y r e v e rs in g th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s o rd e r. I d . a t *2 . In d e c id in g th is iss u e , the a p p e llate courtdet erm i ned thatthe l anguage of 42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1 396r- 5( d) ( 5) and 42 U . S. C ode

### 12

Sect i on 1396r - 5( e) of

t he M C C A p rovi ded “tw o abs ol ut e al t ernat i ve methods of s ett i ng a s pous e’ s al l ow ance and w e ar e bound t o r ecogni ze both pr ocedur es . ” I d . at*2- *3. A cc o rdin g ly, th e c o u rth eld the ag en cy w as w ith o u t au tho ri ty to ign o re th e circu itco u rt ’s ord er. I d. I n s upportof

i t s hol di ng, the courtr eas oned that“had the l egi s l atur e i nt ended adi f f er ent i nterpret at i on , i tcou l d si m ply have st at ed in preci se l ang u ag e thatthe ad m i nis trat i ve p rocess i s the onl y pr ocedur e ava i l abl e. ” I d. ¶ 2 1 . S im ilar to th e T e n n e ss e e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, th e N e w J e rse y S u p e rio r C o u rt h a s im p licitly ru le d t h a t t h e M C C A p ro v id e s tw o in d e p e n d e n t m e a n s to in c re a s e th e M M M N A . M . E. F. v. A. B. F. , 925 A . 2d 12 (N . J . S uper . C t . A pp. D i v. 2007) . I n M . E. F. , the inst i tuti on al i zed spo use h ad be en rece iving M ed icaid b en efit s w h en th e co m m u n ity spo u se p eti ti o n ed the fa m il y co u rt fo r s e p a ra te m a in te n a n c e u n d e r t h e s ta te ’s d o m e s tic la w s . I d . at15. T he f

ami l y courtdeni ed the pet i t i on f

or“l ack of

f actual s upportand pr ocedur al i nadequaci es . ” I d. T her eaf

t er , the com m un i ty s pous e pet i t i oned the s t at e age ncy f oran i ncr eas e i n herM M M N A , w hi ch the a g e n c y g ra n te d . I

d. ¶22. A f

t erobt ai ni ng an i ncr eas e i n the M M M N A , the comm uni ty s pous e r enew ed her m ot i on fo r s e p a ra te m a in te n a n c e in fa m ily c o u rt . I d . A t a h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n , the c o m m u n ity s p o u s e a rg u e d fo r a n a d d itio n a l in c re a s e in h e r M M M N A . Id . a t 1 5 -1 6 . T h e fa m il y co u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n , ruli n g that the “ M C C A ’s p ro v isi o n s reg ard ing co u rto rde rs of su p p o rt appl i ed onl y t o or der s al r eady i n exi s t ence [ pr i ort o i ns t i tut i onal i zat i on] . ” I d. at16. ¶2 3 . O n ap p ea l, the S u p erior C o u rt h eld that the co m m u n ity sp o u se’s effo rt to o b tai n a c o u rt or deraf t ers he had r eques t ed an i ncr eas e i n the M M M N A f r om the ag ency cons t i tut ed

### 13

i m perm i s s i bl e “par al l el l i t i gat i on and a f orm of f orum s hoppi ng. ” I

d . at20. T he courtr eas oned t hat, “h avi ng embar ked upon the admi ni s tr at i ve path by r ece i vi ng and cha l l engi ng the M M M N A pr ovi ded t o her , [ the comm uni ty s pouse] is l i m i t ed t o thatpath unt i l a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve det erm i nat i on has been r eac hed. ” I d . at22. ¶24. W hil e the co urt s i n B lu m bergand M .E.F . ru led o n ly u p o n th e iss u e o f ju risd ictio n to i n c r e a s e th e M M M NA, t h e Su p e r i o rCo u rto f t h e Di s tr i c to f

Co l u mb i a h a s ru l e d th a tth e M CCA p r o v i d e s t wo a l t e rn a t i v e me th o d s o f i n c r e a s i n g th e M M M NA and th e C S R A . I

n re E s tate of T yler , 2002 W L 1274125, *3 ( D . C . S uper . M ay 30, 2002) . I n T yler , the pl ai nt i f

f pet i t i oned the tr i al courtf

ora tr ans f

erof al l the i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e’ s as s et s and an or deraw ar di ng her in c o m e a n d re s o u rc e s fo r h e r s u p p o rta s a c o m m u n ity s p o u s e . I d . at*1. T he pl ai nt i f

f f i l ed her pet i t i on af

t erhers pous e had appl i ed f orM edi cai d, butpr i ort o M edi cai d’ s det erm i nat i on of the s p o u s e ’s e lig ib ility . I

d . a t * 1 -* 2 . D u rin g th e p e n d e n c y o f th e c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s, th e sta te a g e n c y d e n ie d M e d ic a id b e n e fi ts d u e to e x c e s s re s o u rc e s . I d . at*3. ¶ 2 5 . W h ile th e trial c o u rt d e n ied the p e tit io n , it fo u n d tha t, u n d e r th e M C C A , the c o m m u n ity s p o u s e ma y s e e k e i th e ra d mi n i s tr a t i v e o rj u d i c i a l r e l i e f t o i n c r e a s e th e MM M NA a n d th e CS RA . I d . at*2- 3 ( ci t i ng 42 U . S. C . § 1396r - 5( e) a nd 42 U . S. C . § 1396r - 5( d) ( 5) ) . A f t err evi ew i ng the “expr es s l anguage ” of

42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1396r - 5, the courts t at ed “[ t ] her e ca n be no doubt

. . . thatCongre s s i nt ended thats pous al s upportor der s f ori ncome notonl y be t aken i nt o acc ount [ by the age ncy] i n cal cul at i ng i ncome al l ow ance s , butal s o bypas s the s t andar d M edi cai d rul es r egar di ng r es our ces and i ncome. ” I d . at *6 (cit ing 4 2 U . S . C . § § 1 3 9 6 r-5(d )(2) a n d (A ), (d)(5 ),

### 14

and ( f ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i v) and ( f

) ( 3) ) . I n otherw or ds , the courtf ound that courtor der s “pr eemptthe s p o u s a l r e s o u rc e a n d in c o m e a llo w a n c e s ” u n d e r t h e M C C A . I d . ¶2 6 . T h e D ivisi o n urg es th is C o u rtto ad o p t th e h o lding o f A rk a n sa s D e p a rtm e n t o

f He a lth & Hu m a n S e rv ice s v . Sm ith , 262 S. W . 3d 16 7 (A rk. 2007) , w hi ch i s contr ary t o B lu m berg , M . E. F. , and T

yler . T h e A rk a n sa s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e sta te a g e n c y c h a rg e d w ith admi ni s t er i ng M edi cai d i s the “ s ol e ent i t y th a t m a y d e ter m in e w h e th e r a M e d ica id a p p lica n t is e lig ib le fo r M e d ic a id , as w el las f orany of the deduct i ons or al l ow ances perm i t t ed underthe M CCA . ” A rk. D ep ’t

o f Hea lth & Hu m an S ervs. , 262 S. W . 3d at 17 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). In rea ch ing it s d ec isi o n , the a p p ell ate c o u rtan alyz ed tho se M C C A p rov isi o n s tha t r efe r t o a “ co u rt o rd e r,” 4 2 U .S . C o d e S e c tio n s 1 3 9 6 r- 5 (d )( 5 ), ( f) (2 )- (3 ). I d . a t 1 7 2 -7 3 . T h e c o u rt a g re e d w ith the age ncy’ s ar gum entthat“r eadi ng the s t atut e i n i t s ent i r ety m akes i tc l earthatany al l ocat i on o f a c o u p le ’s a s s e ts c a n o n ly o c c u r a ft e r a d e te rm in a tio n o f M e d ic a id e lig ib ility h a s b e e n m a d e .” I d . at172. T he courtnot ed thatSect i on 1396r - 5( b) ( 2) “s peaks of the attr i but i on of

i ncome ‘ f

or purpos es of

the pos t- el igi bi l i t

y in c o m e d e ter m in a tio n ’” a n d tha t S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 r-5 (d )(1 ) “ p e rm its deduct i ons oral l ow ance s f r om the i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e’ s i ncome ‘ af t eran i ns t i tut i onal iz ed s pous e is determ i ned . . . t o be el igi bl e f orm edi cal as s i s t ance . ’ ” I d . ( quot i ng 42 U . S. C . §§ 1396r - 5( b) ( 2) , ( d) ( 1) ) . T he courtnot ed thatCongre s s expr es s l y had author i zed s t at e and l ocal a g e n c ie s to d e te rm in e M e d ic a id e lig ib ility u n d e r4 2 U .S . C o d e S e c tio n 1 3 9 6 (a )( a )( 5 ). I d. Fur therm or e, the courtf ocus ed on the l anguage of Sect i on 1396r- 5( f ) ( 2) - ( 3) and pr ovi ded the f ol l ow i ng anal ys i s , w hi ch w e f i nd es peci al l y r el evantt o thi s cas e:

### 15

[T h e c o m m u n ity sp o u se] th en g o es o n to arg u e tha t C o n g ress u sed the w o rd “sh all ” in § 1 3 9 6 r-5(f)(3), there b y m ak ing the lan g u ag e m an d atory . H o w ev er, w h at [th e c o m m u n ity sp o u se’s] argu m en t f ail s to rec o g n ize is th at th e w o rd “sh all ” d o es n o t actua ll y ap p ea r t o d ir ec t D H H S to ap p ly the co u rt ’s ord er. R eadi ng the s t atut e cl os el y r evea l s thatw hatthe M edi cai d- admi ni s t er i ng agenc y “ sh a ll” d o is n o t a p p ly 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 6 p to re so u rc e s tra n sfe rre d p u rsu a n t to s uch or de r . Se c t i on 1 39 6p d e a l s wi th l i e ns , a dj us tment s a nd r e c ov e r i e s , and tr ans f er s of as s et s . Thats t atut e di s cus s es w hen a l i en m ay be i m pos ed aga i ns tthe pr operty of

an i ndi vi dual w ho has been r ece i vi ng m edi cal as s i s t ance . M or eover , the f

al l acy i n [ the comm uni ty s pous e’ s ] r el i ance on s ubs ect i ons ( f ) ( 2) and ( f ) ( 3) be comes appar entw hen one r eads § 1396r - 5( f ) ( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des as fol l ow s: A n i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e m ay, w i thoutr egar d t o s ect i on 1 3 9 6 p (c )(1 ) o f th is titl e , tran sfe r a n a m o u n t e q u a l to th e c o m m u n ity sp o u se re so u rc e a llo w a n c e (a s d e fin e d in p a ra g ra p h (2 )), b u t o n ly to the e x ten t th e re so u rce s o f th e ins ti tuti o n ali ze d sp o u se a re t ransf err ed t o ( orf

orthe s ol e bene f

i tof ) the comm uni ty s pous e. The tr ans f erunderthe pr ece di ng s entence s hal lbe m ade as s oon as pr act i cable af

t erthe date of

the i nit i aldeterm i nat i on of e lig ib ili ty , tak in g in to a c c o u n t su c h tim e a s m a y b e n e c e ss a ry to o b tai n a c o u rto rde r un d er p ara g rap h (3). (E m p h asis ad d ed . ) T h e e m p h asize d lan g u ag e m ak es itclea r th at th e tran sfers b e tw e e n a n in stitu tio n a lize d sp o u se a n d a c o m m u n ity sp o u se , as sp e c ified in th is st atut e must , tr ans pi r e af t era d e t e rmi na t i on h a s b e e n made abo utthe i ns t i tut i onal i zed s pous e’ s M edi cai d el i gi bi l i ty. I d. at172- 73. ¶27. T he court f

urther not ed that the comm uni ty s pous e coul d s eek admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew of the C SM I A (the com m un i ty s pous e’ s m onthl y i ncome al l ow ance ) , and the C SR A underthe M C C A ’s f

a ir -h e a ri n g p ro v is io n s a n d th e n s e e k ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . I d . a t1 7 3 - 7 4 ( c i t i n g 4 2 U. S . C. § 1396r - 5( e) ) . T he courtrul ed thatagenc i es ar e “be tt erequi pped than court s , by s peci al i zat i on, i ns i ghtand expe r i ence , and m or e f l exi bl e pr ocedur es t o det erm i ne and ana l yze unde r l yi ng l egal

### 16

i s s ues a f f ect i ng thei ra genci es . ” I d . T he courtconcl uded thatthe “c ourtor der ” l anguage w as “i ns uf f i ci entt o c onf

erj ur i s di ct i on, e ven i m pl i edl y, on the ci r cui tcourt [ , ] ” es peci al l y gi ven the fa c t th a t “s e c tio n s 1 3 9 6 r-5 (d )(5 ) & (f)(3 ) o n ly g e n e ra lly re fe re n c e a n o rd e r o f sp o u sa l su p p o rt; they do notm ent i on a court - or der ed C SR A , C SM I A , orM M M N A . ” I d. ¶28. T he M i s s our i C ourtof A ppeal s al s o has hel d thati t s s t at e court s ar e w i thout j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r t h e M C C A . Am os v. Es tate of A m os , 2 6 7 S .W .3 d 7 6 1 (M o . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); see al so Huy nh v. King , 2 6 9 S . W . 3 d 5 4 0 (M o . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). F ind ing that the a g e n c y h ad p ri m ary j ur i s di ct i on, the M i s s our i C ourtof A ppeal s f

ound: T h e a p p lic a tio n o f M e d ic a id re g u la ti o n s d e m a n d s a d m in is tr a tiv e e x p e rt is e . A sin g le s tate a g e n c y m u st o v e rse e th e p ro g ra m . U n ifo rm ity o f re su lt i s c ritica l. N one of thes e obj ect i ves i s f

urther ed by conf

err i ng par al l el j ur i s di ct i on on a p rob ate c o u rt , an d the A ct’s m ere refere n ce to an “a m o u n t tran sfe rre d u n d er a courtor der , ” w i thoutf

urtherexpl anat i on, i s i ns uf f i ci entt o do s o. I d . ¶2 9. W e f

i nd tha t the op i ni on s of the A rka ns a s Sup r e me Court a nd the M i s s our i C our tof A pp eal s provide a m ore co m pell i ng int erpr et at i on o f the spou sal -i m po veri shm ent pr ov i si on s. N ot abl y, 42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1396r - 5( e) s peci f i cal l y pr ovi des a mechani s m f ora dmi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew and r evi s i on of

the C SM I A , M M M N A , and C SR A . Fur therm or e, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 43- 13- 116 s et s f orth the admi ni s tr at i ve- hear i ng pr oces s and pr ovi des t hatan aggr i eved cl ai m ant“i s ent i t l ed t o s eek j udi ci al r evi ew i n a courtof pr operj ur i s di ct i on. ” M i s s . Code A nn. § 42- 13- 116( 3) (e) ( xvi i ) ( R ev. 2009) . T hi s C ourtpr evi ous l y has rul ed that“‘ w her e a r emedy bef or e an a dm i ni s tr at i ve age ncy i s pr ovi ded, re l i ef m us tbe soughtby exhaus t i ng thi s r emedy bef or e the court s w i l l act . ’ ” D avis v. B arr , 1 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 0 5 , 5 0 7 ( M i s s . 1 9 6 3 ) ( q u o t i n g 2 Am.

### 17

J ur . 2d A dm i nis tr at i ve Law , § 595, p. 426) . T hi s C ourtal s o has des cr i bed the doctri ne of pr i m ary j ur i s di ct i on, w hi ch i s r el evantt o the ca s e s ub j udi ce : the court s cannotorw i l l notdet erm i ne a contr over s y i nvol vi ng a ques t i on w hi ch i s w i thi n the j ur i s di ct i on of an admi ni s tr at i ve tr i bunal pri ort o t he deci s i on of that qu est i on by the ad m i nis trat i ve tr i bu nal, w here the q uest i on d em and s the ex erci se of s ound admi ni s tr at i ve di s cr et i on r equi r i ng t he spe ci al know l edge, exper i ence , a n d se rv ice s o f th e a d m in istra tiv e trib u n a l to d e ter m in e tec h n ica l an d in trica te m att er s of

f act , and a uni f

orm i ty of

rul i ng i s es s ent i al t o com ply w i t h the purpos es of

the r egul at ory s t atut e admi ni s t er ed. I l l . Cent . R . Co. v. M

. T . R eed Con s t

. Co. , 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 7 3 , 5 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 5 1 ) (qu o ti n g 4 2 A m . Ju r. P ubl i c Adm i nis tr at i ve Law , § 254) . H ow ever , M r s . A l f or d ar gues thatthe doctr i ne of a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies sh o u ld n o t ap p ly , as th e D iv isio n ’s ru le s tate s: T he C S [ comm uni ty s pous e] s har e of t ot al count abl e r es our ces i s the maxi m um al l ow ed underf

eder al l aw . I n or derf

ora C S t o r ece i ve a shar e l ar gerthan the fe d e ra l m a x im u m , a court or derw ould be r equi r ed gr ant i ng the CS a gr eater s har e of total r es our ces af

t erMedi cai d had m ade a dec is i on r egardi ng s pous al s h a r e s . C ode M i s s . R . 13 000 036 at§ 9210 ( R ev. 1999) ( emphasi s added) . M r s . A l f or d ar gues thatthe D i vi s i on’ s ow n rul es l i m i ti t s author i ty t o gr antthe r eques t ed r el i ef , and as s uch, an adm i nis trat i ve ap peal i s f uti l e and a w ast e of r esources. ¶3 0. W e not e thatthi s a ge nc y rul e app l i e s o nl y t o “ c ou nt abl e r es our ces ” and doe s not s peci f i cal l y a ddr es s the agenc y’ s abi l i ty t o r ai s e the M M M N A ( the nee ds al l ow ance ) above the f eder al maxi m um . W e r eaf f i rm thatthe “rul e r equi r i ng e xhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w ill b e a p p lied e v e n th o u g h a p a rty c o n ten d s th a t t h e a c tio n o f th e a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c y is beyond the pow erand j ur i s di ct i on of the age ncy. ” E v e ritt v. L o v itt , 19 2 S o. 2d 42 2, 42 8 (M i ss.

### 18

1966) . Fur therm or e, t he rel evan ti nqui ry conce rns the pr ovi s i ons of 42 U . S. C ode Sect i on 1 3 9 6 r - 5 , wh i c h th e Di v i s i o n i s b o u n d t o f o l l o w. ¶31 . K ee p ing in m ind the d octr i nes of exh aust i on of adm i nis trat i ve rem edies and pri m ary j ur i s di ct i on, w e hol d thatthe s t atut ory l anguage “i f a cour thas ent er ed an or der ” i s i ns uf f i ci ent to c o n fe r u p o n th e c o u r ts p a ra lle l ju ri s d ic tio n to in c re a s e th e M M M N A a n d C S R A . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e M C C A d o e s n o t c o n fe r ju risd ictio n u p o n o u r sta te c o u rts t o incr ease the M M M N A and C S R A pri or t o an exh aust i on of adm i nis trat i ve rem edies . CO NC L US I ON ¶32. W e aff

i rm the chanc ery court ’ s hol di ng that i t w as w i thout s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on t o i ncr eas e the M M M N A and C SR A pr i ort o the A l f or ds exhaus t i ng thei radm i nis trat i ve rem edies . ¶ 3 3 . AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, KI TC HENS AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S ULT ON LY W I THOUT S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .