IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned On Briefs April 26, 2012

ALENE S. NEAL v. THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County

No. CH-10-09863 Kenny Armstrong, Chancellor

No. W2011-01123-COA-R3-CV - Filed May 16, 2012

The Department of Human Services determined that Plaintiff’s available resources exceeded

the resource limit for purposes of Medicaid benefits in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary

category. The trial court affirmed the Department’s determination. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

and Remanded

DAVID R. FARMER,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HOLLY M. KIRBY,J., and

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., joined.

Alene S. Neal, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter and Shayna Abrams, Senior Counsel,

for the appellee, The State of Tennessee, Department of Human Services.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

This dispute concerns the denial by the Department of Human Services (“the

Department”) of Plaintiff Alene S. Neal’s(Ms. Neal)July 29, 2009 recertification application

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

1

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse

or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion

would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall

be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and shall not be cited

or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
for Medicaid benefits in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (“QMB”) category. The

Department denied Ms. Neal’s application upon determining that her available resources in

the amount of $4,039 exceeded the resource limit of $4,000. Ms. Neal’s QMB coverage was

terminated in August 2009. Ms. Neal appealed the determination.

The matter was heard before a Department Hearing Officer in January 2010. In

March 2010, the Hearing Officer issued an initial administrative order upholding the

Department’s determination and Ms. Neal filed an appeal. The Assistant Commissioner

upheld the determination and issued a final administrative order in April 2010. Ms. Neal’s

application for reconsideration was denied, and Ms. Neal filed a petition for review in the

Chancery Court for Shelby County. Following a hearing in March 2011, the chancery court

found that, based on the bank statements submitted into evidence, Ms. Neal had resources

in excess of $4,000. The chancery court found that Ms. Neal’s resources therefore exceeded

the resource limit of 200 percent of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), or $4,000. The

chancery court determined thatsubstantial and material evidence supported the Department’s

denial of Ms. Neal’s application and entered final judgment in the matter on April 19, 2011.

Ms. Neal filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

Issue Presented

The issue presented by Ms. Neal, as we perceive it, is whether the trial court erred by

determining that the Department’s determination was supported by substantial and material

evidence.

Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s findings of fact with a presumption of correctness unless

the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Accordingly, we will not

reverse the trial court’s factual findings unless they are contrary to the preponderance of the

evidence. We review the trial court’s conclusions on matters of law de novo, however, with

no presumption of correctness. Tidwell v. Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555, 559 (Tenn. 2006). Our

review of a trial court’s application of the law to the facts is de novo, with no presumption

of correctness. State v. Ingram, 331 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Tenn. 2011).

Review pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”) is

governed by Tennessee Code Annotated § 4–5–322(h) (2011). Pittman v. City of Memphis,

360 S.W.3d 382, 386 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011)(citing Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d

555 (Tenn. 2006)). Pursuant to the UAPA:

-2-
The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further

proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if the rights of the

petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings,

inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or

clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(5)(A) Unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material

in the light of the entire record.

(B) In determining the substantiality of evidence, the court shall take

into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the

court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight

of the evidence on questions of fact.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 4–5–322(h) (2011). We are confined to the same scope of

review on appeal. Id. at 387.

Discussion

It is undisputed in this case that Ms. Neal is not eligible for Medicaid in the QMB

category if her non-exempt resources exceed $4,000. The trial court found that Ms. Neal’s

nonexempt resources exceeded thislimit based on bank statementsfor four accountsshowing

balances in the amount of $2,218.83; $57.74; 1,763.12; and $3,457.95. The trial court further

found that an additional account balance was “not available” and excluded the account from

the resource calculation. The trial court found that the Department had determined that,

based on three of the accounts, Ms. Neal’s resources totaled $4,039 and, therefore, exceeded

the $4,000 limit.

In her brief to this Court, Ms. Neal does not dispute that the bank statements submitted

into evidence indicate resources in excess of $7,000. Rather, her argument, as we understand

it, is that the Department and the trial court erred by including federal stimulus payments

when determining the amount of resources available to her. Ms. Neal cites no law to support

her assertion, however. Ms. Neal does not indicate in her brief, moreover, the amount of

income which the Department and the trial court allegedly erroneously included in the

calculation of resources available to her. She cites to no facts in the record to support her

assertions of error.

The Department, on the other hand, asserts that Ms. Neal applied for Medicaid

-3-
benefits on July 29, 2009, more than one year after receiving a stimulus payment on July 5,

2008. The Department further asserts that Ms. Neal presented no proof concerning a 2009

stimulus payment other than stating that she received $250 in 2009. The Department

contends that Ms. Neal, who was represented by an attorney in the proceedings before the

Department, failed to establish that the alleged $250 payment qualified as an income tax

refund, rebate, or earned income tax credit for the purpose of calculating her available

resources for the purpose of determining her QMB eligibility. Upon review of the record,

we cannotsay that the Department’s determination is unsupported by substantial and material

evidence, that it is characterized by an abuse of discretion, or that it is a clear error.

Holding

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are taxed to the Appellant, Alene S. Neal.

_________________________________

DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE

-4-