Schreur v. Dep't of Human Serv., Docket No. 141777.COA No. 285792.

• Decision Date: 04 March 2011
• Docket Number: Docket No. 141777.COA No. 285792.
• Citation: 488 Mich. 1042,795 N.W.2d 124
• Parties: Amanda SCHREUR, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

488 Mich. 1042

795 N.W.2d 124

Amanda SCHREUR, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant–Appellee.

Docket No. 141777.COA No. 285792.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 4, 2011.

Prior report: 289 Mich.App. 1, 795 N.W.2d 192.

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of Appeals, but VACATE that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment that holds that “because [plaintiff] was an applicant for benefits, not a recipient of benefits, [defendant] was not required to cite the specific provision supporting its denial.” Pursuant to 42 CFR 435.912, defendant was required to cite the specific provision supporting its denial. However, defendant's failure to cite the correct regulations on which its denial of benefits was based did not accord plaintiff the right to file her hearing request 368 days after the notice was mailed and 278 days after expiration of the 90–day hearing request period. The notice provided to plaintiff clearly explained why plaintiff was denied benefits, i.e., “because her disability was not ‘expected to last for at least 12 consecutive months' and would not prevent her from ‘working in any substantial gainful employment,’ ” and informed her that she had 90 days to request a hearing if she so desired. The fact that the wrong regulations were cited in this notice did not alter plaintiff's obligation, pursuant to 42 CFR 431.221(d), to request a hearing within 90 days. Plaintiff could have simply included an objection to those regulations in her request for a hearing. That is, while defendant's citation to the incorrect regulations may have provided plaintiff with an additional basis upon which to request a hearing, it did not afford plaintiff an indefinite period within which to request such a hearing.

MARILYN J. KELLY, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the order affirming the result reached by the Court of Appeals. I would grant leave to appeal.

The underlying facts are that plaintiff, Amanda Schreur, had surgery on her back to remove a tumor. On April 29, 2005, she applied for Medicaid disability benefits, claiming she was unable to work because of lower back pain and weakness. She further claimed that, because of her medical condition, her household lost its only source of income.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) denied her application for disability benefits on June 10, 2005. The denial notice stated that plaintiff was ineligible for Medicaid because her “impairment has not lasted nor is expected to last for at least 12 consecutive months and does not prevent working in any substantial gainful employment.” It also stated that a hearing request must be made within 90 days.

Plaintiff submitted a hearing request on June 13, 2006–368 days after the date of the denial notice. Plaintiff claimed that her request was timely because the denial notice was defective. She argued that the notice did not trigger the 90–day period in which to request a hearing because it did not cite specific regulations on which the denial was based. The regulations it did cite were irrelevant to the denial of plaintiff's application.

On December 14, 2006, an administrative hearing was held on the timeliness of plaintiff's hearing request. The hearing referee rejected plaintiff's argument that DHS's failure to cite the correct regulations underlying its decision rendered the notice insufficient or defective. The referee reasoned that, although DHS had to cite the correct regulations in its decision, their omission constituted merely an additional ground on which to request a hearing contesting the decision. It did not “toll” the 90–day period. Accordingly, the referee issued an order dismissing plaintiff's request for a hearing as untimely.

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Bay County Circuit Court, which agreed with her and held that her claim had been timely....