Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Jennifer KINDRON, an infant, by Patricia KINDRON, Guardian of her Property, Petitioner, v. Barbara A. DE BUONO, M.D., M.P.H., as Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, Respondent.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding on behalf of her 15-year-old daughter, Jennifer, who has spinal muscle atrophy, a progressive disease that results in increasing muscular weakness and motor loss. Jennifer's physician requested funding approval from the Office of Health Systems Management (OHSM) for the purchase of a Hoyer swimming pool lift and related accessories to allow Jennifer to engage in therapeutic activities in the pool at her parents' home. OHSM denied the request on the ground that it was not based on medical need but on Jennifer's need for recreation and exercise. At the fair hearing challenging that determination, petitioner presented medical proof establishing that hydrotherapy was prescribed for Jennifer, not primarily to provide recreation or exercise, but to slow the debilitating progression of her disease. More specifically, petitioner established that the medical benefits of hydrotherapy for Jennifer include increases in her ranges of motion, muscle strength and bone density, a reduction in cardiovascular deterioration and the prevention of venostasis and osteoporosis. The physical therapist who has been treating Jennifer testified that those benefits would not be realized through other forms of physical therapy. In addition, the therapist and petitioner testified that the family pool is the only pool adequate to meet Jennifer's needs and that the Hoyer swimming pool lift is the only safe means for transporting Jennifer into the pool. Because respondent offered no proof that the Hoyer swimming pool lift is not medically necessary or that it is not medical equipment encompassed within the definition of “medical assistance” (Social Services Law § 365-a [5] ), the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled (see, Matter of Starkweather v. Wing, 242 A.D.2d 961, 962, 662 N.Y.S.2d 658; Matter of Ray v. Wing, 238 A.D.2d 958, 959, 661 N.Y.S.2d 163; Matter of Gartz v. Wing, 236 A.D.2d 890, 891, 654 N.Y.S.2d 702).
Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)