You are here: / / Application for Undue Hardship Exception to Medicaid Ineligibility Should...

Application for Undue Hardship Exception to Medicaid Ineligibility Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined the Department of Health (DOH) should have granted a nursing home’s (Tarrytown Hall’s) application for an undue hardship exception to Medicaid Ineligibility:

An individual will not be ineligible for Medicaid as a result of a transfer of assets if it is determined that the denial of eligibility will result in an undue hardship. An undue hardship occurs where the institutionalized individual is otherwise eligible for Medicaid, is unable to obtain appropriate medical care without the provision of Medicaid, and is unable to have the transferred assets returned (see 18 NYCRR 360-4.4).Here, the DOH’s determination that Tarrytown Hall failed to demonstrate undue hardship is not supported by substantial evidence. To the contrary, Tarrytown Hall established that the decedent was otherwise eligible for Medicaid, and further established that she was unable to obtain appropriate medical care without the provision of Medicaid by offering proof that the decedent was insolvent and unable to recover transferred assets, and that no nursing facility which could provide her with the necessary level of care would accept her. By offering this proof, Tarrytown Hall met the statutory and regulatory requirements for the undue hardship exception. Matter of Tarrytown Hall Care Ctr v McGuire, 2014 NY Slip Op 02600, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DOCTRINE MAY APPLY TO A DENTIST WHO RETIRED BASED ON TREATMENT PROVIDED BY OTHER DENTISTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PROVED IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING VEHICLES AND THE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS LEASED AT THE TIME, DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE THE CONDITION OF THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Abutting Landowners Owned to the Centerline of the Roadway Bed, Relevant Law Explained
Pursuant to the Doctrine of Caveat Emptor, Seller of Home Was Not Obligated to Disclose Information About the Possibility of the Incursion of Golf Balls from the Neighboring Golf Course
THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD CONVICTIONS WERE BASED ON SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS, THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT WARRANTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WHICH WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Private Right of Action for Homeowners Against Lenders Under the Home Affordable... Obstruction of View of Stop Sign by Vegetation Not Actionable Against the Town...