§ 177.83. [Reserved].
Source The provisions of this § 177.83 adopted August 4, 1977, effective August 5, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 291; amended July 21, 1978, effective August 21, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 2062; amended July 28, 1978, effective July 1, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 2103; amended February 9, 1979, effective March 12, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 505; corrected March 2, 1979, effective March 12, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 745; amended July 20, 1979, effective July 1, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 2397; amended January 11, 1980, effective January 12, 1980, 10 Pa.B. 129; amended February 22, 1983, effective February 23, 1983, 10 Pa.B. 851; amended March 28, 1980, effective January 1, 1980, 10 Pa.B. 1391; amended July 4, 1980, effective February 23, 1980, 10 Pa.B. 2882; amended December 19, 1980, effective December 20, 1980, 10 Pa.B. 4724; amended April 17, 1981, effective June 17, 1981, 11 Pa.B. 1322; amended May 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1981, 11 Pa.B. 1803; corrected June 5, 1981, effective January 1, 1981, 11 Pa.B. 1941; amended October 15, 1982, effective January 1, 1982, 12 Pa.B. 3737; reserved August 26, 1988, effective November 1, 1988, 18 Pa.B. 3893. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (124085) to (124087), (108912), (124918) and (124089) to (124090).
Notes of Decisions Department properly applied its ‘‘name-on-the-instrument’’ rule attributing entire pension to petitioner for purposes of computing his patient pay amount; wife has no present ownership interest in pension although it is marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce. Buck v. Department of Public Welfare, 566 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Petitioner’s available resources were determined by allowing $1,500 exemption for nursing home care. Groblewski v. Department of Public Welfare, 528 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
It is not necessary to demonstrate intent to determine whether MA applicant, who transferred funds to son several weeks prior to application and after hospitalization, did so for purpose of acquiring eligibility for medical assistance, since under relevant section of Welfare Code (62 P. S. § 441.2), requirement that transfer was result of bona fide arm’s length transaction was not demonstrated, and law presumes son’s services were rendered gratuitously. Groblewski v. Department of Public Welfare, 528 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
There is no exemption set forth under this section for funds which are the result of a personal injury award, even where Commonwealth is involved as a tort feasor. Lozada Department of Public Welfare, 522 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where recipient has provided documentation that she tried but was unable to find counsel to file petition for release of daughter’s trust fund monies, the recipient has provided ‘‘documentation that steps have been taken to convert the resource’’ as required by § 177.23(a) and (b). Pitts v. Department of Public Welfare, 512 A.2d 761 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
The income level of approximately $479.00 per month is not below the minimum level of living for a family of six, and the inclusion of Social Security disability benefits as income is not improper in computing eligibility for MA benefits. Belmonte v. Department of Public Welfare, 409 A.2d 920 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
OASDI benefits paid to a parent as representative payee of her children may be considered as a resource available to the family’s support for MA eligibility purposes, and the inclusion of such income is not a denial of equal protection. Korbel v. Department of Public Welfare, 408 A.2d 910 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
The court would have difficulty concluding that an innocent and indigent ward would be ineligible for assistance because her guardian stole the estate. Griffith v. Department of Public Welfare, 399 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Since it appeared that the asserted insolvent condition of an incompetent ward’s estate was contrived by her guardian-daughter so as to qualify the ward for medical assistance, the ward was ineligible for such assistance. Griffith v. Department of Public Welfare, 399 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
The property of a patient will be valued in excess of $1500 despite the fact that DPW produced two differing market value figures, since both values exceeded $1500 and there was no countervailing evidence of a value less than $1500. Skinner v. Department of Public Welfare, 399 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
DPW is required by Federal law to take into account resources of the patient, and since these benefits are controlled by Federal law, it is the duty of the DPW to comply with Federal law or risk losing the benefits entirely. Skinner v. Department of Public Welfare, 399 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
In authorizing full payment for inpatient hospitalization care for a person who was eligible for both MA benefits and no-fault motor vehicle insurance benefits, the Department’s use of the words ‘‘subject to damage claim’’ meant only that MA payments would not be made if the hospital had taken the assignment of any claims which the patient had against third parties under 55 Pa. Code § 177.83(c)(5) (relating to requirements). Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Yocolano, 9 Pa. D. & C.3d 226 (1978).
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 133.83 (relating to requirements); and 55 Pa. Code § 255.84 (relating to procedures).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
