Opinion ID: 874230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The plain language of the Medical Indigency Act

Text: The plain language of the Act does not support the Board's finding that speculative future income is a resource for the purpose of determining an individual's status as medically indigent. As this Court wrote in Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, statutory interpretation begins with the literal words of a statute, which are the best guide to determining legislative intent. 148 Idaho 427, 430, 224 P.3d 494, 497 (2009). The plain meaning of a statute will prevail unless clearly expressed legislative intent is contrary or unless the plain meaning leads to absurd results. Action Collection Serv., Inc. v. Haught, 146 Idaho 300, 303-304, 193 P.3d 460, 463-464 (Ct.App.Idaho 2008). Idaho Code § 31-3502(1) [5] defines medically indigent as any person who is in need of necessary medical services and who, if an adult, together with his or her spouse, or whose parents or guardian if a minor, does not have income and other resources available to him from whatever source sufficient to pay for necessary medical services. The Act was amended in 2005 to define resources under I.C. § 31-3502(17) [6] as: [A]ll property, whether tangible or intangible, real or personal, liquid or nonliquid, including, but not limited to, all forms of public assistance, crime victim's compensation, worker's compensation, veterans benefits, Medicaid, Medicare and any other property from any source for which an applicant and/or an obligated person may be eligible or in which he or she may have an interest. Resources shall include the ability of an applicant and obligated persons to pay for necessary medical services over a period of up to five (5) years. For purposes of determining approval for medical indigency only, resources shall not include the value of the homestead on the applicant or obligated persons' residence, a burial plot, exemptions for personal property allowed in section 11-605(1) through (3), Idaho Code, and additional exemptions allowed by county resolution. S.L. 2005, ch. 281, § 1. The plain language of I.C. § 31-3502(17) does not include speculative future income as a resource for the purpose of determining an individual's status as medically indigent. Many presently held forms of capital, such as real property; as well as future forms of capital that are definite, guaranteed, and clearly measurable such as Medicare benefitsare enumerated as resources by I.C. § 31-3502(17). However, speculative future income is not similar to any of the enumerated future forms of capital because it is not guaranteed and is subject to uncontrollable variables that make it incapable of being definite or clearly measurable. The majority concedes that I.C. § 31-3502(17)'s definition of resources does not include future income. However, it argues that when every word, clause, and sentence of the Act is given effect, as must always be the case, George W. Watkins Family v. Messenger , it becomes clear that future income should properly be considered a resource in determining eligibility for medical indigency benefits. 118 Idaho 537, 540, 797 P.2d 1385, 1388 (1990). The majority found that a comprehensive reading of I.C. § 31-3510A, entitled reimbursement, demonstrates that the legislature intended for potential income to be considered as a resource in determining an individual's status as medically indigent. To reach this conclusion the majority reads subsections (1) and (6) of the reimbursement provision together. Subsection (1) of the reimbursement provision requires recipients of financial benefits to reimburse the county for a reasonable portion of the financial assistance paid on behalf of the applicant as the board may determine that the applicant is able to pay from resources over a reasonable period of time. I.C. § 31-3510A(1). Subsection (6) provides that [t]he board may require the employment of such of the medically indigent as are capable and able to work and whose attending physician certifies they are capable of working. I.C. § 31-3510A(6). The majority's use of the reimbursement provision to illustrate that speculative future income constitutes a resource for determining eligibility for medical indigency benefits is improper. The title of I.C. § 31-3510A, Reimbursement, indicates that any power granted to the counties by the reimbursement provision is only applicable after the county has found that the individual is medically indigent and has also provided her with indigency benefits. Although future income is a resource with respect to an individual's ability to reimburse the county for medical assistance under I.C. § 31-3510A(1), it is not a resource for the purposes of determining whether an individual qualifies for medical indigency benefits in the first place. Until a person is found to be medically indigent and has received benefits, there can be no reimbursement and I.C. § 31-3510A cannot be applied. Therefore, I.C. § 31-3510A(6) cannot be read in conjunction with I.C. § 31-3510A(1), as the majority suggests, to expand the scope of what constitutes a resource for purposes of determining eligibility for medical indigency benefits. Rather, for a form of capital to constitute a resource for the purpose of determining eligibility for medical indigency benefits, authority must be found in the language of I.C. § 31-3502(17), which, in this case, does not exist.