Miller v. Ibarra
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
746 F. Supp. 19 (1990)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Lottie Bernice Ham was an elderly woman who needed residential nursing care. Ham lived in a nursing home paid for by Medicaid. After Ham’s husband died, Ham began receiving a survivor’s pension, making her ineligible for Medicaid. Ham’s daughter, L. Jeanette Miller (plaintiff), had to spend over $40,000 for her mother’s care. A Colorado district court ordered that Ham’s income be placed in trust with Miller as trustee. The trust provided that the trustee could distribute, at most, an amount that was $20 less than the monthly-income-eligibility standard used for Medicaid. Miller then applied for Medicaid for Ham, the application was denied, and the denial was upheld by an administrative-law judge. Miller filed suit in federal district court, seeking a reversal of the decision denying aid against Irene Ibarra as executive director of the Colorado Department of Social Services (defendant). Marie Louise Turtness, Mary D. Cummings, and Maria S. Tasei (plaintiffs), who were elderly women facing similar circumstances as Ham’s, were also plaintiffs. Tasei was evicted from her nursing home when she began receiving a retirement-program benefit and a Veterans Administration benefit that were too high for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to pay for her nursing home. All parties moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carrigan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
