Document: 451 U.S. 625 101 S.Ct. 1961 68 L.Ed.2d 495 Antonia BELTRAN, Petitioner,v.Beverlee A. MYERS, Individually and as Director, California State Department of Health, et al. No. 80-5303. May 18, 1981. PER CURIAM. 1 We granted a writ certiorari, 449 951, 353, 66 214 (1980), to review decision the United States Court Appeals for Ninth Circuit, holding that California's "transfer-of-assets" statute applicable "medically needy" recipients Medicaid benefits does not conflict with governing federal law. Dawson v. Myers, 622 F.2d 1304 (1980). Petitioner is an individual considered under plan,1 who represents class all such persons have been denied because previous transfers assets less than full consideration.2 She argues this exclusion impermissible it based on rule only recipients, could apply law "categorically recipients.3 2 After our grant certiorari November 3, 1980, Congress passed § 5 Pub.L. 96-611, 94 Stat. 3567 (Dec. 28, 1980) (the "Boren-Long Amendment"), which made material changes in area. This section creates presumption disposed consideration within preceding 24 months should be included resources applicant SSI benefits. The can overcome "convincing evidence establish transaction was exclusively some . purpose" other establishing eligibility. 5(a) (amending 1613 Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1382b). goes allow state plans similar rules recipients—including both categorically needy medically needy. 5(b), 3568 1902 1396a). It states if plan includes transfer-of-assets rule, shall specify procedure implementing denial "which, except provided paragraph (2), more restrictive specified" SSI. Paragraph (2) provides where uncompensated value disposed-of exceeds $12,000, may impose period ineligibility exceeding months, long bears "a reasonable relationship value." 3 In sum, would appear future will permitted restrictions generally California. change take effect July 1, 1981, 2, 3567—a matter weeks from now. raises question whether appropriate decide merits underlying dispute by Appeals. 4 determined caused recent statutory amendment requires reconsideration below Because change, standards respect transfer-of-asset altered significantly. Although fair say endorsed like California's, detailed provisions recently enacted require rule. note particular seems include residence claimant among given away without corresponding loss coverage.4 Under Boren-Long Amendment, however, arguably asset must excluded.5 opportunity argue validity new law—an issue addressed parties Court. vacate below, remand case its light change. 6 so ordered. 7 Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL join, concurring judgment. 8 For reasons stated Second Circuit Caldwell Blum, 621 491 cert. pending, 79-2034,1 application members prior effective date Pub. L. 3567, prohibited existing judgment therefore set aside. On remand, should, course, consider impact members' rights, but also determine what relief remedy past violations.2 Cf. Quern Jordan, 440 332, 99 1139, 59 358. 9 Accordingly, I concur Court's further proceedings. "Medically are categories recipients—aged, blind, disabled, or dependent children—which derived welfare programs. They income levels, too high qualify regular assistance Supplemental Income (SSI) Aid Families Dependent Children programs, reason distinguished recipients. CFR 435.4 out Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code Ann. 14015 (West 1980). part: "[A]ny transfer holdings gift or, knowingly, adequate consideration, presumed constitute property intent act disqualify owner aid established director, no event half capital transferred supplied person's maintenance needs his circumstances at time plus cost any needed medical care." See n. supra. receive merely virtue their eligibility AFDC Since has not, until recently, conditioned retention assets, disqualification Petitioner's claim here she accorded same treatment terms §§ 1396a(a)(10)(C), (17)(B). 435.401 herself penalized her home relatives. 1382b, program "(but subject exclusions subsection (a))." Subsection (a) 1613, 1382b(a), claimant's home, household effects, certain items. If allowing disposal these excluded items reductions benefits, requiring ignore administering Medicaid. (providing plan's "procedure" cannot SSI, longer $12,000). 126 Cong.Rec. 33928 (1980) (Sen. Long) ("Generally, [Medicaid] Federal cases very large assets—more $12,000—is involved"). But see Senate Committee Finance, Spending Reductions: Recommendations Required Reconciliation Process Section 3(a)(15) H.Con.Res. 307, First Budget Resolution Fiscal Year 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 20 (Comm. Print (analysis identical S. 2885, 511 (1980)) ("the committee sold market still available support, during years following asset") (emphasis added). Fabula Buck, 598 869 (CA4 1979); Robinson Pratt, 497 F.Supp. 116 (Mass.1980), appeal dism'd, vacated remanded, 647 160 (CA1 1981); Scarpuzza 73 A.D.2d 237, 426 N.Y.S.2d 505 Blum Caldwell, 446 1311, 100 1635, 64 225 (MARSHALL, J., chambers). addition declaratory injunctive relief, plaintiffs seek "reimbursement those amounts they had forced pay state's rule." 1304, 1309 (CA9 Amendment clearly control reimbursement sums paid past.

Category: 1