Court Opinion

ID: 9883356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:40:46.549774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.840486
License: Public Domain

MINGE, Judge
(concurring specially).
This decision results in partial preemption of the Minnesota law. In addition, the decision limits the long-term ability and flexibility of the state of Minnesota to collect reimbursement for Medical Assistance from those able to pay. Finally, it creates opportunity for estate planning creativity and abuse that would frustrate such collections of Medical Assistance reimbursement in the future.
As the majority opinion in this case recognizes, we should avoid finding federal preemption unless it is clearly required. Section 1396p(b)(4) of title 42 of the federal code was amended in 1993 to both set a higher minimum standard for state efforts to collect reimbursement for Medicaid (in Minnesota the Medicaid program is known as Medical Assistance) and to give the states flexibility to accomplish this. Pub.L. No. 103-66, § 13612(c) (1993). The language in the federal law is admittedly not a model of clarity. To the extent this decision limits the efforts of the state of Minnesota to deal with the unfortunate, but persistent, efforts of some to enhance their final estate by sheltering and divesting assets in order to qualify for Medical Assistance, this decision takes us down the wrong road. That road and federal preemption can be avoided by construing words “estate,” “interest,” and “other arrangement” in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(b)(4) (2000) to include any estate, interest, or arrangement that the state by law establishes for purposes of recovery of Medical Assistance (Medicaid) benefits. By this approach, we minimize the endless scheming. The all-together human temptation to take advantage of a generous government program is controversial, brings discredit to estate planning, and breeds cynicism in the larger community. Since I do not agree that the federal law should be read to preempt Minnesota law and preclude an expansive state interpretation of “estate,” “interest,” or “arrangement,” I do not join in the opinion of the court. However, at oral argument the respondent stated that if the state of Minnesota could reach the limited interest attributed to Walter Gull-berg as allowed by the majority, the state would be fully reimbursed for its claim. Therefore, I concur in the result.