Estate of Ethel Barnett v. Department of Health & Human Services
Maine Superior Court
2006 WL 1668138 (2006)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Ethel Barnett lived in a nursing home. Ethel’s daughter, Amy Barnett, held a power of attorney and executed a personal-care contract on Ethel’s behalf. Under the contract, Amy was to provide certain personal services in exchange for compensation paid from Ethel’s estate (plaintiff). Specifically, Amy agreed to pay Ethel’s bills, file paperwork, shop for supplies, and transport Ethel to appointments. Additionally, during nursing-home visits, Amy agreed to assist Ethel with meals, personal hygiene, and visitations with Ethel’s sister. Amy provided approximately 14 hours of care for Ethel each week. Between December 2003 and June 2004, Amy received compensation under the care contract. In July 2004, Ethel applied for Medicaid. Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (department) (defendant) concluded that the financial compensation paid to Amy for performing tasks already provided by the nursing home, such as helping with meals, personal hygiene, and visitations, was an improper transfer of assets for less than fair market value and rendered Ethel temporarily ineligible for Medicaid. The department therefore granted the Medicare application with a four-month penalty period, meaning that Ethel’s Medicaid coverage would not begin until December 2004. Amy filed suit to challenge the department’s decision, arguing that because her services were provided pursuant to a personal-care contract, the compensation payments did not trigger a penalty period.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cole, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

