Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance, 4573

• Decision Date: 22 September 1987
• Docket Number: No. 4573,4573
• Citation: 12 Conn.App. 435,531 A.2d 606
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ethel CANTOR v. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME MAINTENANCE et al.

Page 606

531 A.2d 606

12 Conn.App. 435

Ethel CANTOR v. DEPARTMENT OF INCOME MAINTENANCE et al.

No. 4573.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Submitted on Briefs June 12, 1987.

Decided Sept. 22, 1987.

Michael J. Mullin, Newington, and Herbert I. Cantor, Washington, D.C., filed a brief for appellant (plaintiff).

Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty. Gen., and Wendell S. Gates, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, filed a brief for appellees (defendants).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and SPALLONE and DALY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff ¹ is appealing from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her administrative appeal from a decision of the defendant commissioner of the department of income maintenance. The defendant had denied the plaintiff's decedent medical benefits under the Social Security Act, title XIX, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.

The principal issue raised in this appeal is whether the state may deny medical benefits under title XIX to the settlor-beneficiary of a trust if the trust empowers the trustees to invade the trust principal for the benefit of the settlor-beneficiary in the case of medical emergency. The trial court, in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal, answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff argues that the trial court erred (1) in concluding that, under Maryland law, the entire corpus of the trust is subject to invasion for the benefit of the beneficiary's creditors, (2) in failing to consider whether an emergency occurred, and (3) in failing to consider whether the hearing officer erred in concluding that a "sickness" contemplated by § 3 of the trust agreement existed or had occurred. ² The trial court, Satter, J., filed a complete, wellreasoned and legally sound memorandum of decision which indicates that the trial court afforded the plaintiff's administrative appeal the appropriate scope of review, analyzed the issues raised, cited proper authority and drew legal conclusions in conformity with the law. The trial court's decision so completely articulates the issues involved in this appeal and so adequately explains the legal basis for its conclusions that it may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and applicable law. See Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018, 105 S.Ct. 432, 83 L.Ed.2d 359 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984); State v. Barrett, 10 Conn.App. 667, 668-69, 525 A.2d 139 (1987); White Oak Corporation v. Department of Revenue Services, 2 Conn.App. 165, 166, 476 A.2d 639 (1984).

Accordingly, the trial court's memorandum of decision filed in Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance, 40 Conn.Sup. 554, 531 A.2d 608 (1987), should be referred to for a detailed discussion.

There is no error.

1 On June 11, 1987, following the death of the plaintiff Ethel Cantor, we granted the motion of Herbert I. Cantor, executor of the estate of Ethel Cantor, to be substituted as appellant and allowed him to appear pro se.

2 The second and third claims of error relate to the factual finding of the fair hearing officer, which was upheld by the trial court, that the plaintiff's medical condition constituted an emergency which had arisen due to sickness. That factual determination was made in reliance upon the commissioner's initial memorandum of decision, which stated that the medical records of the plaintiff had been reviewed, and that an unexpected stroke had been suffered by the plaintiff.

At the time of the fair hearing, no objection was raised to the introduction of this memorandum, nor were any attempts made to refute the conclusion regarding the plaintiff's medical condition, or to cross-examine...