Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Gorney Estate
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided February 4, 2016No. Docket Nos. 323090, 323185, 323304, and 326642Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJansen, P.J.
I concur with the majority’s determinations that *301the notice provided in the redetermination application was statutorily sufficient, the lack of notice at the time of enrollment did not violate due process, and the estates did not have a due-process right to the continuation of a favorable Medicaid law. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determinations that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) violated the due-process rights of the decedents by seeking to recover benefits expended between July 1, 2010, and July 1, 2011, and that the Ketchum estate may raise the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Bonner v. City of BrightonMichigan Supreme Court · 2014
- in Re Keyes EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015