In re E.B.

Citation729 S.E.2d 270,229 W.Va. 435
Decision Date21 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. 101537.,101537.
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
PartiesIn re E.B., A Minor. Michael J. Lewis, Secretary, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Petitioner.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Preempted

West's Ann.W.Va.Code, 9–5–11

Syllabus by the Court

1. “In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syllabus Point 2, Walker v. W. Va. Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997).

2. “Preemption is a question of law reviewed de novo. Syllabus Point 1, Morgan v. Ford Motor Co., 224 W.Va. 62, 680 S.E.2d 77 (2009).

3. “The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, invalidates state laws that interfere with or are contrary to federal law.” Syllabus Point 1, Cutright v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 201 W.Va. 50, 491 S.E.2d 308 (1997).

4. Pursuant to Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268, 126 S.Ct. 1752, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006), the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources may obtain reimbursement for medical expenses paid from only that portion of the settlement, compromise, judgment, or award obtained by a recipient of Medicaid assistance that constitutes damages for past medical expenses.

5. West Virginia Code § 9–5–11 (2009) is preempted to the extent that its assignment and subrogation provisions conflict with federal law. To the extent that our prior decision in Grayam v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 201 W.Va. 444, 498 S.E.2d 12 (1997), provided that pursuant to W. Va.Code § 9–5–11 the Department of Health and Human Resources possesses a “priority right to recover full reimbursement from any settlement, compromise, judgment, or award obtained from such other person or from the recipient of such assistance if he or she has been reimbursed by the other person,” that holding is overruled.

6. If another person is legally liable to pay for medical assistance provided by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, the Department possesses a priority right to be paid first out of any damages representing payments for past medical expenses before the recipient can recover any of his or her own costs for medical care.

7. After a settlement, compromise, judgment, or award has been obtained in a Medicaid assistance recipient's claim to recover damages for injuries, disease, or disability, all reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the agreement of the Department of Health and Human Resources regarding the allocation of that portion thereof that represents the recipient's past medical expenses. No such settlement, compromise, judgment or award shall be consummated or judicially approved, if necessary, until the Department has been notified and afforded such opportunity to agree to the parties' allocation of damages or to challenge said allocation.

8. If the Department of Health and Human Resources and the parties cannot agree on an allocation of damages in a settlement context once the Department is notified and provided an opportunity to protect its interest, the parties must seek judicial allocation through the court. If judicial allocation becomes necessary, the trial court is required to hold an evidentiary damages hearing, whereupon all parties and the Department are provided ample notice of the same and are given just opportunity to present the necessary evidence, including fact witness and expert witness testimony, to establish what each contends is an appropriate allocation of damages. In challenging an allocation of damages proposed by the parties, the Department of Health and Human Resources has the burden of proof to establish a proper allocation.

9. For purposes of appeal, the circuit court's judicial allocation decision should be set forth in a detailed order containing the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its rulings.

Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq., Attorney General, Mary McQuain, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, DHHR Division/Bureau for Medical Services, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.

Kevin M. Pearl, Esq., Michael G. Simon, Esq., Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Weirton, WV, Louis Bograd, Esq., Washington, DC and Max Freeman, Esq., Lawrence Lassiter, Esq., Miller Weisbrod, LLP, Dallas, TX, Pro Hac Vice, for Respondent.

David J. Sims, Esq., Sims Law Offices, Wheeling, WV, Guardian ad litem.

BENJAMIN, Justice:

The instant action is before this Court upon the appeal of Michael Lewis, Secretary, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, (hereinafter DHHR),1 intervenor below, from a final order entered on July 12, 2010, in an infant summary proceeding under W. Va.Code § 44–10–14 (2002). In its order, the circuit court granted the motion of Respondent, Holly G.,2 for allocation of a $3,600,000 settlement, holding that the United States Supreme Court case, Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268, 126 S.Ct. 1752, 164 L.Ed.2d 459 (2006), is the controlling law for the issues raised by the parties herein. The circuit court held that Ahlborn requires a proportional reduction of DHHR's recovery based on the ratio of the settlement to the “full value” of the case among the various damages categories. Using this method of allocation, the circuit court reduced DHHR's statutory reimbursement from the requested amount of $289,075.44, to $79,040.82, and directed that the net settlementproceeds be placed in a special needs trust 3 for the benefit of the minor.

Herein, DHHR seeks a reversal of the circuit court's order and a remand with directions that DHHR is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $289,075.44, plus interest. This Court has before it the petition for appeal, all matters of record, and the briefs and arguments of counsel. For the reasons expressed below, the July 12, 2010, order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Holly G. gave birth to her son, E.B., at Coshocton County Memorial Hospital on May 12, 2005, in Coshocton, Ohio.4 E.B. was born with severe brain damage, which has required and will continue to require significant medical care. Holly G., on behalf of E.B., applied for and received Medicaid benefits from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) until February, 2007, when she and E.B. moved to Hancock County, West Virginia. On February 5, 2007, Holly G., on behalf of E.B., applied for and received Medicaid benefits from the West Virginia DHHR.

On or about May 16, 2007, Holly G. filed a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of the infant, E.B., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against Coshocton County Memorial Hospital; Janet Burrell, R.N.; Gabriel Yandam, M.D.; and LeFemme Obstetrics and Gynecology, LLC. Holly G. settled the case against Dr. Yandam and LaFemme Gynecology, LLC in September 2009 for $1,000,000. The settlement constituted the policy limits of the defendants' insurance coverage and was contingent upon court approval. The settlement agreement did not allocate the amount recovered among the various elements of damages suffered, i.e., medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, etc. DHHR sought reimbursement for its medical payments from the settlement proceeds Holly G. had obtained on E.B.'s behalf. 5

On October 13, 2009, Holly G. petitioned the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia, pursuant to W. Va.Code § 44–10–14, for approval of the first settlement with Dr. Yandam and LaFemme Gynecology, LLC.6 In her Petition, she requested that the Court pay her attorneys fees and legal expenses from the settlement funds, that Medicaid not be reimbursed due to the enormous costs of future care that she alleged dwarfed the limited funds available for settlement, that Holly G. be paid a fair sum of the net settlement proceeds, and that the remaining net settlement proceeds be placed in a special needs trust for the benefit of E.B. DHHR filed a motion to intervene on October 26, 2009.7 In its motion, DHHR asserted a statutory priority right to subrogation from the settlement proceeds. It also asserted that it did not agree to set aside its reimbursement, did not agree to a judicial allocation or apportionment, and further asserted that a Medicaid recipient's settlement funds first must satisfy the State's reimbursement for past medical expenses paid on behalf of the Medicaid recipient as a result of the third party's tortious conduct before the remainder may be transferred to a special needs trust.

On November 12, 2009, the circuit court held a hearing after which it granted DHHR's motion to intervene; approved the first settlement; approved payment of attorneys fees and litigation costs out of the settlement proceeds; ordered that the net settlement proceeds ($368,000) be paid into an escrow bearing account in the name of E.B. until further order of the Court; and directed Holly G., DHHR, and ODJFS to engage in good faith negotiations to attempt to resolve the disputes between them.

On December 9, 2009, Holly G. settled with the hospital and Janet Burrell, R.N. for $2,600,000. As with the settlement with Dr. Yandam and LaFemme Gynecology, this settlement constituted the policy limits of the defendants' insurance coverage and was contingent upon court approval. This settlement agreement also did not allocate the amount recovered among the various elements of damages. As of this date, DHHR had paid medical expenses for E.B. in the amount of $557,104.71. In accordance with W. Va.Code § 9–5–11 (2009)8, DHHR offered to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Gallardo v. Dudek, No. 17-13693
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 26 Junio 2020
    ..., 248 So. 3d at 56 ; Lugo ex rel. Lugo v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr. , 819 N.Y.S.2d 892, 895–96 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006) ; In re E.B. , 229 W.Va. 435, 453, 729 S.E.2d 270, 288 (2012) ("After a thorough examination of the Ahlborn decision and the language contained in [the West Virginia statute] ... ......
  • State v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 21 Junio 2012
    ...that the circuit court did not commit error in permitting the admission of this 404(b) testimony during the trial in this matter. [729 S.E.2d 270]IV.CONCLUSION After thorough consideration of each of the separate assignments of error presented by Petitioner on appeal, for the foregoing reas......
  • Wos v. E.M.A.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 2013
    ...& Inst. Code Ann. § 14124.76(a) (West 2011); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 208.215.9–11 (2012); Tenn.Code Ann. § 71–5–117(g)–(i) (2012); In re E.B., 229 W.Va. 435, ––––, 729 S.E.2d 270, 297 (2012). Many of these States have established rebuttable presumptions and adjusted burdens of proof to ensure that s......
  • Wos v. E.M.A.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 2013
    ...& Inst. Code Ann. § 14124.76(a) (West 2011); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 208.215.9 –11 (2012); Tenn.Code Ann. § 71–5–117(g) – (i) (2012); In re E.B., 229 W.Va. 435, ––––, 729 S.E.2d 270, 297 (2012). Many of these States have established rebuttable presumptions and adjusted burdens of proof to ensure tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT