A big part of elder law is helping clients get eligible for Medicaid since that government program has strict rules about an applicant’s assets, income, and prior transfers. There are a variety of legal strategies to employ to meet the eligibility rules and obtain long-term care benefits. However, is submitting a seemingly one-sided consent judgment a viable strategy? Can the judge reject the consent judgment because Medicaid qualification might be a motivating factor for the parties? This issue was recently litigated in Michigan.

When qualifying for long-term Medicaid, there are asset and income restrictions. In many states, the applicant cannot have more than $2,000 in assets and receive benefits. Luckily, the equity in the applicant’s home is an excluded asset, up to a certain amount. But in order to have the home’s equity excluded, must the applicant have occupied that home prior to applying for benefits? This issue was recently litigated in Texas.

Federal law, specifically 42 U.S. Code § 1396p(c)(2)(D), dictates that a state must establish procedures that allow a Medicaid applicant to receive needed care via a hardship waiver. In these cases, the applicant (or their spouse) had made a transfer during the look-back period that would otherwise incur a penalty whereas the applicant would not be eligible to receive Medicaid benefits for a certain period of time. If the applicant can show that the imposition of the penalty period would deprive the applicant of necessary medical care or the necessities of life, then the hardship waiver can be approved, allowing the applicant to get needed care immediately. Basically, the penalty period is waived if the hardship waiver is granted.