Mulder v. South Dakota Department of Social Services
South Dakota Supreme Court
2004 S.D. 10, 675 N.W.2d 212 (2004)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Ervin Mulder (plaintiff) received Medicaid long-term care benefits through the South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) (defendant). Mulder’s sole income was his social security benefits, from which his monthly alimony obligation was deducted. DSS considered the money Mulder paid in alimony as part of his available income and set his Medicaid benefits amount accordingly, leaving Mulder unable to cover the full monthly cost for his long-term care facility. Mulder challenged the benefits calculation. After a hearing, DSS upheld its initial benefits determination. DSS argued that the money Mulder paid in alimony should be considered part of his available income because (1) the South Dakota Medicaid statute did not specifically exclude money used for alimony payments from available income; (2) the South Dakota Medicaid eligibility requirements referenced the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility requirements to determine available income; and (3) SSI counted the money used for alimony payments as part of available income for SSI eligibility determinations. Mulder appealed to federal court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sabers, J.)
Dissent (Zinter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
