

Requires Acrobat Reader.
Fair
Hearing Decision MRA-1448121 on Insurance Issue
In this recent fair hearing decision the Department reversed a determination by hearing examiner Sean Maloney that case value life insurance is not an income producing asset for purposes of allowing an increased CSRA to produce additional income. This case was handled by section member Jim Jaeger of Madison.
Rung
vs. DHFS, Case No. 00 CV 2362 (Dane County Circuit Court Aug. 31,
2001)
This is also a case on the issue of "non income producing assets" for purposes of determining whether or not a CSRA can be increased. In this case, the Dane County Circuit Court held that where there are non incomce producing assets, a medical assistance applicant must be given an opportunity to convert the asset into an income producing asset. This was handled by section members David Uphoff and Sarah Buscher.
In Keip v. DHSF, the Court of Appeals has held that the retirement plan assets of a non-institutionalized spouse are not to be counted in determining the Medical Assistance eligibility of the institutionalized spouse. This case was argued by Elder Law Section board member Sara Buscher. The Elder Law Section and the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups filed amicus briefs which were cited with approval by the Court.
Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg
In Vacco v. Quill, Case No. 95-1858 (Sup. Ct. 1997), and Washington v. Glucksberg, Case No. 96-110 (Sup. Ct. 1997), the United States Supreme Court upheld the right of the states to regulate physician-assisted suicide. These cases reversed two lower court opinions that had struck down state statutes attempting to regulate in this area. For example, in Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington the Ninth Circuit overturned the State of Washington's ban on assisted suicide.
In In the Matter of M.F., Case No. 95-2719 (Sup. Ct. 6/12/97), the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that the guardian of an incompetent advanced Alzheimers patient may not terminate tube feeding. The Court held that since the ward was not in a "persistent vegetative state," the Court would not extend the L.W. case to a situation not involving persons in a persistent vegetative state. This case presents significant issues for elder law practitioners, guardians and health care providers.
In Estate of Furgason v. DHSS, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Circuit Court for Richland County and held that placing a home (in this case a farm) in a revocable trust where the MA recipient and spouse were the beneficiaries does not deprive the property of its exempt homestead status for Medical Assistance purposes.
This case deals with the procedures for obtaining spousal support from community procedures.