- 27 -
provided for a “‘trust fund to be established in * * * [the
child’s] behalf’”. Id. During the settlement process, a number
of checks were issued, payable to various combinations of the
child, his conservator, and his parents, and an annuity was
assigned to the child, through his conservator, and to his
parents, “individually”. Id. The annuity and portions of the
lump-sum payments were placed in the trust. Id.
The question before the court was whether the trust was a
“Medicaid qualifying trust” under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396a(k)(2)
(1988), such that the trust estate would be deemed “available” to
the child and would eliminate his eligibility for health care
benefits from the State. Id. As pertinent there, the trust
would meet the statutory definition of qualifying only if the
child were considered to have established or created the trust.
Id. at 565-566. On the facts presented, the court in Kegel v.
State, supra at 567-568 concluded:
There is nothing in the record to support a
finding or conclusion that * * * [the child] or his
conservator was entitled to any particular portion of
the proceeds. The record indicates that his parents
and the conservator acted jointly in deciding upon a
trust as a vehicle for managing the funds they
anticipated as a result of the settlement. To the
extent the parents funded the trust with their share of
the settlement proceeds, the Department appears to
concede that the trust was not a Medicaid qualifying
trust. * * *
* * * * * * *
The creation of this trust involved multiple
grantors. * * * [The child] never had unrestricted
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011