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.
IN RE: Gerald H. Pitman, etc., Petitioner, v. Richard F. Daines, M.D., Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Sudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for Richard F. Daines, M.D. and David Hansell, respondents.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for Robert Doar, respondent.
_
Determination of respondent New York State Department of Health, dated January 7, 2009, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed respondent New York City Human Resource Administration's determination denying petitioner-executor's application to have the deceased's net available monthly income reduced for Medicaid eligibility purposes by amounts the deceased paid for private nurses while residing in a nursing home, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [Barry Salman, J.], entered September 2, 2010), dismissed, without costs.
Respondents' determination that private 24–hour nursing care may have provided the deceased with “optimal care” but was not “essential” care that was “medically necessary” for purposes of Medicaid reimbursement, is based on substantial evidence. The agency's determination is entitled to deference because it involves the agency's interpretation of its own regulations and the legislation under which it functions (Curry v. Wing, 277 A.D.2d 41 [2000] ).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 6215
Decided: December 01, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)