Opinion
11-P-1001
04-27-2012
GLENN BEACHAM v. DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD OF HEARINGS.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a decision of the MassHealth Board of Hearings (board) dismissing his appeal. We affirm.
On July 3, 2006, Glenn Beacham was notified that he was eligible to receive benefits through MassHealth Essential (MassHealth) and, as a result, he enrolled in the program. One year later, he was notified that he was eligible to receive insurance under the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (Commonwealth Care), and soon thereafter he enrolled in Commonwealth Care. Meanwhile, during the year in which he was enrolled in MassHealth, $452.42 was paid to various health providers for services that he received.
In June, 2008, Beacham learned about the estate recovery program, which enables the Commonwealth to recoup monies expended under MassHealth on behalf of an individual from his estate upon his death. The estate recovery program does not apply to Commonwealth Care members. On September 22, 2008, Beacham requested a hearing before the board, claiming that the debt to be charged against his estate upon his death -- $452.42 -- was incurred in error because he should have been enrolled in Commonwealth Care, not MassHealth, from the beginning.
The board dismissed Beacham's appeal on September 25, denying his request for a hearing because it was filed more than thirty days after the action that he was contesting, that is, the date he was notified that he was eligible to receive benefits through MassHealth, in July of 2006. Beacham requested that the dismissal be vacated, and the board denied his request on October 1, 2008, stating that his 'reason for failure to file a timely appeal' did not constitute grounds for vacating the dismissal. Additionally, the board stated, 'When you applied for MassHealth you were required to sign an application. Your signature indicates you have read and understood the application and implications of applying for MassHealth. The issue of estate recovery is set out on the signature page and is not appealable to the Board of Hearings.' A Superior Court judge affirmed the board's decision dismissing Beacham's appeal, and this appeal from the judgment ensued.
Judicial review of an administrative decision under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, is 'highly deferential to the agency . . . [with] due weight [given] to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency, as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it.' Friends & Fishers of the Edgartown Great Pond, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Protection, 446 Mass. 830, 836 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We will only overrule an agency's decision if it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, or 'arbitrary or capricious.' Andrews v. Division of Med. Assistance, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 228, 231 (2007).
Beacham's appeal to the board was required to be received by the board 'within thirty days after [he received] official notice of the action taken by [MassHealth].' G. L. c. 118E, § 47. It is undisputed that Beacham did not file his request until September 22, 2008, almost two years after the date in question. Accordingly, there is no basis for vacating the board's decision. As to Beacham's claim that he should be permitted to pay the debt now, it suffices to note that (with exceptions not pertinent here) G. L. c. 118E, § 31(b)(3), as amended by St. 1995, c. 38, § 133, limits MassHealth to recovering '[f]rom the estate of an individual' the cost of any medical assistance payments made on his or her behalf.
As to Beacham's remaining arguments, 'they 'have not been overlooked. We find nothing in them that requires discussion." Department of Rev. v. Ryan R., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 380, 389 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 78 (1954).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Berry & Vuono, JJ.),