Cite as: 534 U. S. 473 (2002)
Syllabus
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the State's income-first statute conflicts with the MCCA, which, the appeals court held, unambiguously mandates the resources-first method.
Held: The income-first method qualifies as a permissible interpretation of the MCCA. Pp. 489-498.
(a) Neither § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C)'s text nor the MCCA's structure forbids Wisconsin's approach. This case turns on whether the words "community spouse's income" in § 1396r-5(e)(2)(C) may be interpreted to include potential, posteligibility transfers of income from the institutionalized spouse permitted by § 1396r-5(d)(1)(B). According to Blumer, the plain meaning of "community spouse's income" precludes such inclusion; by choosing the possessive modifier "community spouse's," Blumer maintains, Congress clearly expressed its intent that only income actually possessed by the community spouse at the time of the hearing may count in the calculation. The Court rejects this argument. Use of the possessive case does not demand construction of the quoted phrase to mean only income actually possessed by, rather than available or attributable to, the community spouse; to the contrary, use of the possessive is often indeterminate. Cf., e. g., Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A., 517 U. S. 735, 739. The Court finds similarly unpersuasive Blumer's argument that the Act's design as a whole precludes use of the income-first method. In this regard, Blumer contends that, because the (e)(2)(C) hearing to obtain an enhanced CSRA occurs at the time an eligibility assessment is conducted, while no CSMIA income may be transferred until after eligibility has been achieved, the Wisconsin statute reverses the priority ordered by the MCCA. The Court disagrees with Blumer's conclusion: The (e)(2)(C) hearing is properly comprehended as a pre-eligibility projection of the couple's posteligibility financial situation; it is not unreasonable for a State to include in its estimation of the "community spouse's income" in that posteligibility period an income transfer the law permits at that time. The same misunderstanding of the (e)(2)(C) hearing also underlies the contention that the income-first method renders meaningless § 1396r-5(b)(1)'s key prohibition against deeming income of the community spouse available to the institutionalized spouse. This argument confuses the inclusion of an anticipated CSMIA in the preeligibility calculation of the community spouse's posteligibility income with the actual transfer of income permitted by the CSMIA provision. Far from precluding Wisconsin's approach, the MCCA's design offers affirmative support for the income-first method. Subsection (b)(1) has no counterpart prohibiting attribution of the institutionalized spouse's income to the community spouse. Indeed, § 1396r- 5(d)(1)(B) specifically permits a transfer of income from the institution-
475
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007