Estate of Atkinson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STRINGER, Justice.
We consider here the issue of at what point in time the assets of a married couple, one institutionalized, must be evaluated for purposes of determining eligibility under Minnesota’s medical assistance program.
The Otter Tail County Department of Human Services (“the County”) denied respondent Marion Atkinson’s (“Marion”) 1994 application for medical assistance (“MA”) on the ground that, due to appreciation of her husband Merle’s (“Merle”) assets since the time of Marion’s institutionalization in 1991, Merle’s assets exceeded the maximum spousal share of $72,660…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Atkins v. RiveraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Markwardt v. State, Water Resources BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Mammenga v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Krumm v. R. A. Nadeau Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Citizens Advocating Responsible Development v. Kandiyohi County Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- In Re the Estate of BargSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Kersten v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- In Re Estate of JobeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Ak v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Serv.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.