The Evangelical Good Samaritan Society v. Valenti

Filing 30

ORDER for further briefing to be filed within 14 days. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 3/25/2016. (CG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE EVANGELICAL GOOD SAMARITAN
SOCIETY, AS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF HOWARD
JOHNSON;

4:14-CV-04174-VLD

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
Plaintiff,
vs.
LYNNE VALENTI, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
Defendant.

This matter is pending before the court on the petition of the Evangelical
Good Samaritan Society LLC doing business as Luther Manor (hereinafter
“Good Samaritan”), as authorized representative of Howard Johnson. See
Docket No. 1. Good Samaritan seeks a declaration as to defendant’s obligation
to provide Medicaid benefits to Mr. Johnson, a resident in Good Samaritan’s
long-term care facility. Id. Jurisdiction is premised upon the presence of a
federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, namely an interpretation of the
Federal Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17)(B), and implementing
regulations. Id. Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s petition for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 19. All parties have consented
to this court’s handling of their case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Good Samaritan’s petition is based upon the premise that DSS denied
Mr. Johnson benefits because it counted resources owned by his estranged
wife, Geralda Johnson, against Mr. Johnson. Good Samaritan posits that
federal law prohibits DSS from attributing to a Medicaid applicant resources
that are unavailable to that applicant. Good Samaritan further asserts that
Geralda’s resources are unavailable to Mr. Johnson by virtue of a 1995
separation agreement signed by the two spouses.
In its reply brief, DSS asserted new facts in support of its motion to
dismiss. DSS asserts that--without even considering Geralda’s resources--the
resources owned by Mr. Johnson in his own name as of April 1, 2014, were
sufficient to render him financially ineligible for Medicaid benefits for long-term
care. DSS asserts that South Dakota has established $2,000 as the upper
limit of resources an individual may own and still qualify for Medicaid benefits
for long-term care. DSS asserts that the administrative record on
Mr. Johnson’s denied application reveals as of April 1, 2014, he owned a CUNA
Mutual Fund worth $3,440.43 and a 1998 Ford Escort motor vehicle worth
$775. See Docket No. 29 at p. 3, n.1; Docket No. 29-1. On the same date,
Mr. Johnson owned a US Bank checking account containing $1,431.55 in
funds. Docket No. 29-1. Thus, DSS asserts the issue of whether it properly
attributed Geralda’s resources to Howard Johnson, and whether that decision

2

was in conflict with federal law, is a moot issue because Mr. Johnson’s
resources in his own name disqualified him from receiving benefits.
Because these new facts were articulated for the first time by DSS in its
reply brief, Good Samaritan did not have the opportunity to respond to them.
The court would find it helpful to have Good Samaritan’s response to these
newly-asserted facts. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner Good Samaritan shall file a brief within 14
days from the date of this order addressing these two issues:
1.

Whether it disputes factually the above assertion by DSS regarding

assets held in Howard Johnson’s own name as of April 1, 2014. If Good
Samaritan does dispute these facts, Good Samaritan is directed to submit
whatever evidence it relies upon for its dispute of those facts.
2.

Whether Good Samaritan agrees that Mr. Johnson was financially

ineligible for long-term care Medicaid benefits due to resources held in his own
name.
3.

What effect the new facts and/or Mr. Johnson’s eligibility for

benefits may have on the various legal theories DSS has asserted in support of
its motion to dismiss.
DATED this 25th day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge

3