Court Opinion

ID: 9691491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:35:52.033519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:15:00.314489
License: Public Domain

Jim Hannah, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that this case must be remanded for a determination regarding the Schroders’ financial resources before the issue of whether the annuity is a countable asset can be determined. This case was certified to us on several grounds, most notably that the annuity issue is one of first impression. The majority has chosen, however, to completely sidestep the only issue that is properly before us on appeal. The hearing officer’s decision in the present matter is based solely on the determination that the annuity is a countable asset. The majority attempts to dodge the fact that the hearing officer never addressed the issue of other available assets by stating that the issue was briefly raised during the administrative hearing. While this is true, a closer review of the record reveals that the issue of other available assets was cut short, and the hearing itself limited to the sole issue of the annuity’s status. From the outset of this case, DHS has taken the position that Mrs. Schroder was ineligible for Medicaid benefits because the annuity purchased by her husband was a countable asset. In their May 3, 2001, Notice of Action, DHS stated that Mrs. Schroder’s application was being denied because the annuity had to be counted as a resource. No mention was made regarding other assets. As the majority points out, Sally Hall, Family Support Specialist for DHS, testified at the administrative hearing that she was responsible for reviewing Mrs. Schroder’s Medicaid application and determined that she was ineligible for benefits. According to Hall, a review of the Schroders’ Resource Assessment forms from December 1, 2000, indicated that the Schroders had liquid assets in excess of the allowable maximum that would have to be spent down before they could become Medicaid eligible. According to Hall, this excess did not include the annuity. The hearing officer pointed out, however, that the present appeal was from the denial of the April 3, 2001, application and not the denial of the December 1, 2000, application. Hall then stated she was unsure as to whether or not she had updated the Resource Assessment, because there was no reason to update the forms given the fact that Mrs. Schroder still had excess resources due to the annuity. Hall ultimately admitted that she did not have updated Resource Assessment forms for the April 3, 2001, application; rather, she based her determination on the December 2000 figures, because of the fact that the annuity was considered a countable resource. Upon further questioning, Hall stated that she did have an updated bank statement for the Schroders, but that she had not done any calculations comparing the 2001 information with the 2000 information to determine if any resources had been spent in that time. The hearing officer then asked DHS’s counsel, Ann West, if she would like Hall to calculate that information. Initially, West stated that the information might be helpful. Then, Raymon Harvey, counsel for Mrs. Schroder, stated that he was concerned that Hall might be rushed in doing the calculations and may not have all the information that she needed to complete them. The following colloquy then took place between the hearing officer and both attorneys: Harvey: Basically, the issue comes down to the annuity. So — [Hearing Officer]: Of course, then I’d have to remand it back for all this. If I ruled in favor of that, it would still have to be remanded for all the information on the resource at the beginning of the month. Harvey: But, if it makes a difference on whether there’s —, if the annuity is indeed counted as an available resource, the amount of excess, we need to know. My client needs to know. [Hearing Officer]: Right, right. Harvey: And if there are other resources beyond the annuity itself that are still in excess, we need to know that too. [Hearing Officer]: Right. Harvey: I mean, it makes a big difference when, where we have $100,000 too much or we have $10,000 too much. [Hearing Officer]: Right, right, right. Harvey: And whether the house is involved. [ Hearing Officer] : So you want to hold off on that, figuring? I mean, I’m sure they can give it to you other than through this hearing. Harvey: Yeah, just hold off on the — [Hearing Officer]: Is that all right with you, Ms. West? West: That’s fine. [Hearing Officer]: So the attorneys both kind of seem to be agreeing that they want to hold off on that determination and only discuss the annuity. Hall: Okay. So, you don’t need a figure then, right? [ Hearing Officer] : Right. I mean, Mr. Harvey, if the annuities would be ruled in his favor, he’d still need to know if they were over resources so they’d know how much, you know, what they’d need to reduce by to make her eligible. All right. So, we’ll carry on and we’ll narrow this just to the issue of the annuity then. Clearly, the only issue considered and decided by the hearing officer was the issue of whether or not the annuity was a countable asset. The fact that the administrative hearing was limited to only this issue was agreed to by DHS’s counsel. DHS cannot now argue, nor can the majority properly conclude, that the issue regrading the annuity is immaterial because of other excess assets. We have repeatedly stated that failure to obtain a ruling from the trial court is a procedural bar to the consideration of an issue on appeal. Madden v. Aldrich, 346 Ark. 405, 58 S.W.3d 342 (2001); Estate of Donley v. Pace Indus., 336 Ark. 101, 984 S.W.2d 421 (1999). Despite the fact that the issue is not properly before this court, the majority now opines that the proper method for handling this case is to remand it for a determination of the Schroders’ resources in April of 2001. Not only is the majority ignoring the only issue in this appeal, but it is also creating a new argument for DHS. It is axiomatic that this court will not make a party’s argument for him, nor raise an issue sua sponte unless it involves the jurisdiction of this court to hear the case. See Ilo v. State, 350 Ark. 138, 85 S.W.3d 542 (2002); R.N. v. J.M., 347 Ark. 203, 61 S.W.3d 149 (2001). The majority, without any citation to controlling authority, deems this a “threshold matter” that must be determined before the issue of the annuity’s status as a countable asset is addressed. The majority ignores, however, the critical fact that in order for DHS to completely and correctly make a determination regarding the Schroders’ resources, the agency needs to know whether the annuity is a countable asset. In her opinion, the hearing officer stated in the finding of facts as follows: 2. Mrs. Schroder applied again for Medicaid benefits in May of 2001. The County Office requested an opinion again from the OCC about how the annuity contract purchased from the couple’s funds should be counted in reference to the couple’s countable assets. The OCC’s opinion remained that the annuity should be considered in the Petitioner’s eligibility determination as well as that it failed as a permissible transfer because someone other than the spouse could benefit from the annuity (the children are the secondary beneficiaries rather than the annuitant’s spouse, Mrs. Schroder). 3. The Family Support Specialist denied the application based on the opinion, but did not provide evidence of the couple’s resources at the time [of] this application. Both attorneys agreed at the hearing that the only issue on this appeal would be the effect of the annuity on the couple’s resources. Therefore, no evidence concerning the couple’s other resources is considered and these resources would need to be determined for the date of application if a determination was made that the annuity was not an impermissible transfer or a countable resource to the couple. As the hearing officer pointed out, the only reason the issue of the Schroders’ other assets might have an impact on this case is if it is determined that the annuity is not a countable asset. If it is a countable asset, then it must be included by DHS in computing the Schroders’ financial resources as of April 2001. Thus, in the favor of judicial economy, the wise approach to this case would be to determine the issue of the countability of the asset, as it is the controlling issue regarding Mrs. Schroder’s Medicaid eligibility. I am well aware that this court has a long-standing rule that it will not issue advisory opinions. Typically, when this court declines to address an issue raised by a party it is because there is no issue in controversy, thus rendering any decision a mere advisory opinion. See Worth v. City of Rogers, 341 Ark. 12, 14 S.W.3d 471 (2000); Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334, 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998). In the case before us now, however, there is a clear controversy, namely the status of the annuity as a countable asset, and this court should address the controversy at hand. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. Glaze, J., joins this dissent.