Opinion
2014-06-20
In the Matter of Beatrice L. CORCORAN, Petitioner, v. Nirav R. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Respondent.
Desmarteau & Beale, Rochester (George Desmarteau of Counsel), for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of Counsel), for Respondent.
Desmarteau & Beale, Rochester (George Desmarteau of Counsel), for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination that an 18–month delay in her Medicaid eligibility was properly imposed as a penalty for transferring resources in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage. We confirm the determination. Where a petitioner has transferred assets for less than fair market value, he or she must “rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by ... anticipation of future need to qualify for medical assistance” (Matter of Mallery v. Shah, 93 A.D.3d 936, 937, 939 N.Y.S.2d 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Donvito v. Shah, 108 A.D.3d 1196, 1198, 969 N.Y.S.2d 693). Here, the New York State Department of Health determined that, during the 60–month look-back period, petitioner and her husband made uncompensated transfers of approximately $176,000 to their family members. The evidence presented at the hearing established that petitioner had mobility issues for several years prior to her hospitalization and application for Medicaid, and petitioner failed to submit any medical records to support the allegation that she was in good health. Furthermore, petitioner failed to establish that the transfers were “part of a long-standing pattern,” inasmuch as she presented no evidence that substantial gifts such as the uncompensated transfers at issue were made in prior years ( see Matter of Lipkin v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 146 A.D.2d 964, 964–965, 537 N.Y.S.2d 328). Thus, contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that the transfers were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to qualify for Medicaid ( see Matter of Barbato v. New York State Dept. of Health, 65 A.D.3d 821, 822–823, 884 N.Y.S.2d 525,lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 712, 2009 WL 4037018).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.