In the EState Strayer v. State

• Decision Date: 19 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. WD 72707.,WD 72707.
• Citation: 339 S.W.3d 621
• Parties: In The Estate of Joanna STRAYER, Deceased, Ronald DeClue as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joanna Strayer, Respondent,v.STATE of Missouri, Department Of Social Services, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

339 S.W.3d 621

In The Estate of Joanna STRAYER, Deceased, Ronald DeClue as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joanna Strayer, Respondent,

v.STATE of Missouri, Department Of Social Services, Appellant.

No. WD 72707.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 19, 2011.Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Denied May 31, 2011.

Megan K. Fewell, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.Robert J. Seek, Eldon, MO, for Respondent.Before CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, P.J., JAMES EDWARD WELSH, and GARY D. WITT, JJ.JAMES EDWARD WELSH, Judge.

The State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, MO HealthNet Division (“State”) appeals the circuit court's judgment denying its claim against the estate of Joanna Strayer(“Estate”) for reimbursement of Medicaid assistance funds that the State allegedly expended on Strayer's behalf.On appeal, the State contends that MO HealthNet's computerized records, standing alone, constituted sufficient evidence to entitle it to recover on its claim.We affirm.

Strayer died testate on July 19, 2005.Letters testamentary were issued in her estate, and Ronald DeClue was appointed personal representative of her estate.On March 3, 2009, the State filed a claim against the Estate in the amount of $52,931.33 for reimbursement of Medicaid benefits allegedly paid on Strayer's behalf during her lifetime.

At the subsequent claim hearing, the State noted that it had filed with its claim ten pages of computerized records from the MO HealthNet Division. ¹ A business records affidavit was attached to the records.The records indicated that they were for the “Estate of Ann Strayer.”The top of the first page of the records contained the line, “TOTAL AMT DUE: $52931.33.”The remaining information in the records was divided into sections by providers and contained abbreviated headings and information below each heading.The State offered no testimony or evidence explaining the data contained in the records.The State's attorney argued that the records conclusively established that the State had paid $52,931.33 in Medicaid benefits on Strayer's behalf.

In response, the Estate asked the court to deny the claim on the basis that the State failed to meet its burden of proof.The court took the matter under advisement and asked the parties to brief the issue.After receiving the parties' briefs, the court found that the State's evidence was insufficient and denied the claim.The State appeals.

Review of this case is governed by Murphy v. Carron,536 S.W.2d 30, 32(Mo. banc 1976).We will affirm the circuit court's judgment unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law.Id.

In denying the State's claim, the circuit court first found that the State failed to prove that Ann Strayer, whose Medicaid benefits were the subject of the State's computerized records, was the same person as Joanna Strayer, the decedent.The court found that the computerized records made no reference to Joanna Strayer and that there was no other identifying information from which the court could conclude that the Ann Strayer in the records was, in fact, Joanna Strayer.Because there was “zero evidence” before the court that Joanna Strayer was ever known by any other name, the court found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof to recover on its claim.We agree.

Although the State contends that captioning its claim against the Estate as “In the Estate of: Ann (Joanna) Strayer” proved that Joanna Strayer was Ann Strayer, the State's self-serving caption was not evidence.The State also argues that it established that Joanna Strayer was Ann Strayer because the computerized records for Ann Strayer's estate showed a social security number.The State offered no evidence of Joanna Strayer's social security number, however, so there was no way to determine if the social security numbers were, in fact, the same.Next, the State claims that the computerized records showed that Ann Strayer's date of death and last place of residence were the same as those listed for Joanna Strayer in the personal representative's Application for Letters Testamentary.The computerized records for Ann Strayer did not list a date of death or last place of residence.Thus, the State's claim regarding what the computerized records showed is based upon its interpretation of the data in the records and not upon any interpretation that was in evidence before the circuit court.

Finally, the State argues that the Estate presented no evidence that Joanna Strayer was not Ann Strayer.The State had the burden of proof, however, and the Estate did not stipulate that Joanna Strayer was Ann Strayer.Even though the Estate presented no contradictory evidence, the court, as the trier of fact, did not have to believe the State's assertion.SeeWhite v. Dir. of Revenue,321 S.W.3d 298, 305(Mo. banc 2010).As evidenced by the court's findings, it did not.Because the State failed to make its prima facie case that Joanna Strayer was Ann Strayer, the Estate had no burden of proving otherwise.The circuit court did not err in denying the State's claim on this basis.

The circuit court also denied the State's claim on the basis that the State's computerized records did not satisfy the standard set forth in section 473.398.4, RSMoCum.Supp.2010.²Section 473.398 allows the State to recover public assistance funds, including Medicaid benefits, which were expended on the decedent's behalf during the decedent's lifetime.Section 473.398.4 sets out the type of proof necessary to establish such a claim against the decedent's estate:

4.Claims consisting of moneys paid on the behalf of a participant as defined in 42 U.S.C. 1396 shall be allowed ... upon the showing by the claimant of proof of moneys expended.Such proof may include but is not limited to the following items which are deemed to be competent and substantial evidence of payment:

(1) Computerized records maintained by any governmental entity ... of a request for payment for services rendered to the participant; and

(2) The certified statement of the treasurer or his designee that the payment was made.

The court found that the computerized records were insufficient because they did not indicate that the claim consisted of moneys paid on behalf of a Medicaid recipient as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 1396.The court stated that it was “left to speculate as to what the random numbers set forth in the bare records represent.”The court noted that the Estate was “not obligated to prove the negative” and that the State failed to meet its burden of proof.

On appeal, the State contends that the computerized records were sufficient to make a prima facie case for recovery pursuant to section 473.398.4, and, because the Estate presented no evidence to contradict the computerized records, the State was entitled to judgment in its favor.Like the State's argument regarding whether Joanna Strayer was, in fact, the Ann Strayer listed in the records, the State's argument on this issue rests upon the mistaken belief that the court had to believe that the computerized records showed what the State represented they did-even though the State presented no evidence to support its assertion.“When the burden of proof is placed on a party for a claim that is denied, the trier of fact has the right to believe or disbelieve that party's uncontradicted evidence.”White,321 S.W.3d at 305(citingBakelite Co. v. Miller,372 S.W.2d 867, 871(Mo.1963)).“If the trier of fact does not believe the evidence of the party bearing the burden, it properly can find for the other party.”Id.“ ‘Generally, the party not having the burden of proof on an issue need not offer any evidence concerning it.’ ”Id.(citation omitted).

The State had the burden of proving its claim for recovery.The Estate did not stipulate to the amount of Medicaid benefits expended on Strayer's behalf.It was the court's prerogative to believe or disbelieve the State's evidence even though the Estate presented no contrary evidence.Clearly, as evidenced by the court's findings, it did not believe that “the random numbers set forth in the bare records” represented the amount of Medicaid benefits expended on Strayer's behalf.

Even if the circuit court had found the computerized records to be probative of the amount of Medicaid benefits expended on Strayer's behalf, the issue remains as to whether the computerized records were sufficient, by themselves, to entitle the State to recover under section 473.398.4.To resolve this issue, we must interpret the statute.When interpreting a statute, we are to ascertain the legislature's intent by giving the statute's language its plain and ordinary meaning.Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. of Mo. v. Taveau,316 S.W.3d 338, 349(Mo.App.2010).“If statutory language is not defined expressly, it is given its plain and ordinary meaning, as typically found in the dictionary.”Derousse v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,298 S.W.3d 891, 895(Mo. banc 2009).Where the legislature's intent is unambiguous from the language's plain and ordinary meaning, we are bound by that intent and cannot resort to any statutory construction.Taveau,316 S.W.3d at 349.

Looking at the language of section 473.398.4, we note that the legislature says in the first sentence that a claimant, in this case, the State, is entitled to recover Medicaid benefits from an estate upon a showing of “proof of moneys expended.”In the second sentence, the legislature provides guidance as to what constitutes sufficient “proof of moneys expended.”§ 473.398.4.Specifically, the legislature says that such proof “may include but is not limited to” the items listed in subdivisions (1) and (2), and these items “are deemed to be competent and substantial evidence of payment.”Id.The items listed in subdivision (1) are the computerized records maintained by a governmental entity of a ...