Case of first impression in Pennsylvania unsuccessfully seeking to establish a spouse's property interest in her institutionalized husband's pension for purposes of determining eligibility for medical assistance. Subsequent legislation passed by Congress protected spouses' interests in the institutionalized spouse's income and resources.
Case of first impression filed in 1988 under alternative theories of tort, breach of contract and consumer protection violations under Pennsylvania law for discharging a nursing facility resident after applying for medical assistance. Established the right of nursing facility residents in Pennsylvania to file suit for violations of nursing home residents' rights under the Medical Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396 et seq. pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. §201-1 et seq.
Case of first impression filed in 1994 under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §704 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§12101 et seq., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for discrimination against an Alzheimer's Disease patient for a nursing home's refusal to admit the patient because of the difficult behaviors associated with the disease. The Third Circuit recognized the right of disabled persons seeking admission to federally-funded programs because of their disability to file suit for discrimination on the basis of their handicap. The Court also recognized a duty imposed upon nursing facilities to make reasonable accommodations for difficult patients requiring nursing care.
Case of first impression when filed in 1993 on behalf of a class consisting of all nursing home residents with spouses living in the community challenging the adequacy and application of Pennsylvania's implementation of the Spousal Impoverishment provisions of the Medical Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396r-5. Court-approved settlement provided class members with the right to request corrective payments from the Department of Public Welfare and resulted in revised procedures to be implemented prospectively.
Case of first impression and certified as a class action challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s special needs trust law, §1414 of Act 42, published in Purdon’s at 62 P.S. §1414. Action was based upon alternative theories of preemption by federal law pursuant the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and as violative of the rights of disabled individuals to Medical Assistance under federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Motion for Summary Judgment granted and upheld on appeal awarding plaintiffs declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating substantial parts of the state statute.
Lead counsel representing the North Dakota Department of Human Services in an appeal before the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit challenging the constitutionality of a state Medicaid statute used in determining income eligibility for community spouses who have purchased annuities.
Action challenged the adequacy and application of New Jersey’s implementation of the Spousal Impoverishment provisions of the Medical Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396r-5. The district court’s denial of injunctive relief was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. The identical issue was decided by The U.S. Supreme Court on appeal from the state Supreme Court of Wisconsin three years later in Wisconsin Dept. Of Health and Family Services v. Blumer, 534 U.S. 473 (2002).