488
Opinion of the Court
cordingly, there was no need to reserve additional assets for Burnett, and no acceleration in Irene's Medicaid eligibility.
The following table illustrates the differences between the income-first and resources-first methods as applied to the Blumers:
| Analysis of the Blumers' Financial Situation | Income First | Resources First |
| Initial Resources Allocation: Total Resources Burnett's Share Irene's Share |
$145,644 $72,822 $72,822 |
$145,644 $72,822 $72,822 |
| Standard Amount of Resources Protected: Burnett's Standard CSRA Irene's Personal Allowance Total |
$72,822 $2,000 $74,822 |
$72,822 $2,000 $74,822 |
|
Assessment of Burnett's Income: Pension and Social Security Income Income from Standard CSRA Total Wisconsin MMMNA Compared to Burnett's Income Income Shortfall | $1,324
$315 $1,639 $1,727 -$1,639 $88 |
$1,324 $315 $1,639 $1,727 -$1,639 $88 |
|
Satisfying Burnett's Income Shortfall: Enhanced CSRA Income from Enhanced CSRA Required Income Transfer from Irene (CSMIA) |
$0 n/a $88 |
$14,513 $63 $25 |
|
End Result: Total Resources Protected | $74,822 | $89,335 |
The hearing examiner's determination was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Green County. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, however, reversed. Concluding that the MCCA unambiguously mandates the resources-first method, the Wisconsin appellate court declared that the State's income-first statute impermissibly conflicts with federal law. 2000 WI App. 150, 237 Wis. 2d 810, 615 N. W. 2d 647. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007