Source: http://www.ronmlandsman.com/news-center/cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:40:32+00:00

Document:
Richardson v. Hamilton, No. 2:17-cv-00134-JAW, 2018 WL 1077275 (D.Me.Feb. 27, 2018), appeal pending sub nom. Maine Pooled Disability Trust v. Hamilton, 1st Cir., No. 18-1223. This suit challenges Maine’s policy of imposing penalty periods for Medicaid long term care services on elderly individuals (over the age of 64) who fund exempt pooled special needs accounts. The federal district court granted Maine’s motion to dismiss; the case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Brief for Appellant, Brief for Appellee, Reply Brief for Appellant, and friend of the court briefs from the Special Needs Alliance and from the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Guardian Community Trust are attached, along with the district court’s adverse decision.
After oral argument, the Court asked CMS to explain its position. Its brief and three in response are also attached – CMS Amicus brief, Appellant Brief in Reply to CMS, SNA Brief in Reply to CMS, and Guardian-NAELA Brief in Reply to CMS.
Also attached are amicus briefs filed in two cases presenting the same question, Hutson v. Mosier, 54 Kan.App.2d 679, 401 P.3d 673 (2017), Brief for Amicus National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, and Cox v. Iowa Department of Human Resources, Iowa S.Ct., no. 18-0026, Brief for Amicus National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Special Needs Alliance. In Cox, one justice in dissent agreed with the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys and Special Needs Alliance’s position.
District of Columbia v. Dionne K——, D.C. Superior Court, 2017 LIT 000002, February 2, 2018. This suit successfully challenged the District’s practice of enforcing Medicaid claims against the estate’s of deceased Medicaid recipients who were survived by disabled children if the child did not reside in the deceased parent’s former home. The resident-in-the-home requirement was held to be illegal, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(2)(A). Attached is the Superior Court order granting the estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment, along with copies of the Motion for Reconsideration, the District’s Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration, and the prior Order denying the Motion.
Janigan v. Pane, U.S. District Court for D.C., No. 1:07-cv-00508(PLF), Order, 4-21-2010 – D.C. consented to an injunction that requires full compliance with “PEME” rules. Co-counsel with Cy Smith and William Meyer of Zuckerman Spaeder.
Smith v. Colmers, Balt. City Cir. Ct., No. 24-C-05-007421, Memorandum, 1-18-2008 and Smith v. Colmers, Order, 3-12-2010 – Maryland agreed to pay $16 million in damages to class members and nursing homes for unpaid bills and consented to an injunction that requires full compliance with “PEME” rules. Co-counsel with Cy Smith and William Meyer of Zuckerman Spaeder. Obtained from the Federal agency, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Gale P. Arden letter dated 9-13-2004, a determination that Medicaid beneficiary can use current income to pay old (pre-Medicaid eligibility) nursing home bills with Medicaid covering all of current cost of care.
Walton v. Mariner Health of Maryland, Inc. 391 Md. 643 (2006). Co-counsel, with Benjamin Woolery, for appellant. The Court held that the standard agency-approved nursing home admission agreement did not permit a claim for non-payment against “responsible parties,” personally, who sign a relative in to a nursing home.
D.C. v. Rasmussen, D.C. Superior Court, Admn. No. 1641-00 (Estate of Simmons). Successfully opposed D.C. Medicaid program claim against decedent’s estate for recovery of benefits paid for services provided individual under the “community medicaid” program because of D.C.’s failure to properly promulgate its estate recovery program in its Medicaid State Plan, a Federal law requirement. 2002-2006 In the next four years, successfully opposed D.C. Medicaid program claims against decedent’s estates for recovery of benefits paid for services for the same defect and because of D.C.’s failure to give Federally required notice respecting rights to hardship waiver and prohibition against estates with surviving spouses and disabled children. D.C. changes its policies and practices in 2006.
McGhee et al. v. Secretary, Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al., Maryland Court of Special Appeals, September Term 1999, No. 02837, Order dated December 26, 2000. Settled claim with Maryland Medicaid agreement to come into compliance with Federal law and permit the use of court orders to increase the income and resources of the “community spouses” of married nursing home residents.
Treatment of out-of-state former homes. In 1994, persuaded Maryland Medicaid program to change policy to come into compliance with Federal law and permit nursing home residents to treat out-of-state former homes as exempt former home without loss of residency status for Medicaid eligibility purposes. Results in treating former DC (and other states) residents in Maryland nursing homes to be treated same as Maryland residents with respect to former homes. See “Maryland Medicaid Agrees to Exclude Out-of-State Former Homes,” The ElderLaw Report, 12:2, P. 5 (September 1995).
"My entire family remains very grateful to our wonderful lawyer, May-Lis Manley. She helped us to obtain outstanding results, and she did it while sharing a warm and engaging personality with all. I would not hesitate to recommend her, and the entire firm, to all my friends, family, and colleagues."
"We were directed to the law firm of Ron M. Landsman, P.A. and specifically to May-Lis Manley by the Maryland Disability Law Center. The firm represented us in appealing the Maryland Medical Assistance REM program’s termination of nursing services for our adult disabled son. Ms. Manley was thorough and thoughtful in all the encounters and meetings that we had with her. Ms. Manley’s thorough preparation of our case, including assembling an incredible defense of medical professionals who were prepared to testify in our son’s behalf, and knowledge of the law enabled us to prevail. We would not have succeeded without their counsel and are pleased that their conscientious efforts resulted in our son continuing to receive overnight nursing care."
"If you wake up one day and find yourself needing the services of an elder law attorney, Ron M Landsman is your man. One day I did after my husband's hospital stay transitioned to longterm care. What to do? A good friend recommended Ron to me. After the first telephone call, I felt totally de-stressed. I felt as if those problems were lifted from my shoulders."
"Ron M. Landsman was referred to us through an attorney that wrote our wills. He's an expert in medicaid. As he told us, in our meeting he would tell us everything we ever wanted to know and more. That was so true. He patiently repeated himself when we didn't understand and entertained our questions. The experience was well worth our time and his fee.
At the end of our discussion, he recommended that we have a General Power of Attorney. His fee was very reasonable and his staff's patience with our questions and 'back and forth' was wonderful. We must have asked his paralegal the same question a dozen times and each time the response was calm, courteous, and professional. Whether the paralegal was frustrated or not, she never let on. I would and do recommend Ron M. Landsman to those in my social and professional circle."
"Ron Landsman came very highly recommended to me. At our first meeting or two, he laid out what our plan should be to accomplish our needs. Ron was right on and our goals were met with minimum complications. He and his staff were always responsive and reliable.
We thank them for their professionalism and courtesy."
"Mr. Landsman and his professional staff have been a true blessing for our family. Their breadth of knowledge and attention to detail have been crucial in successfully guiding us through a complex situation that involved dealing with asset protection matters across state lines, and helping our father qualify to receive the Medicaid benefits he needs in the Maryland care facility where he lives. At our first meeting I was impressed with the fact that Ron took the time needed to dig deep and get all of the relevant information in order to come up with the client-specific legal and financial strategy that his team helped us put in place. The follow-through from Ron, Vijaya and Sanja is always prompt, efficient, responsive, and accurate -- which is essential, as I live far from Maryland. I have dealt with legal firms throughout the country my entire professional life, and am truly grateful and impressed. I wholeheartedly recommend this team to any family whose loved ones face difficult financial and legal circumstances in their golden years."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1396
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.