Dokos v. Miller

6 Citing cases

  1. Beltran v. Myers

    701 F.2d 91 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 21 times

    Justice Stevens, in his concurrence, in which three others joined, thought that the rule was prohibited, but the majority declined to reach this issue. See Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D.Ill. 1981), where the court invalidated Illinois' pre-July 1981 transfer rule, noting that " Beltran simply sheds no light on the substantive issues raised in this action." Dokos, 517 F. Supp. at 1042 n. 3.

  2. Synesael v. Ling

    691 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1982)   Cited 7 times

    Two district courts which have considered this issue in reviewing other states' transfer of assets rules have had no difficulty in reaching that conclusion. See Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039, 1045 n. 8 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Beltran v. Myers, 4 Medicare Medicaid Guide (CCH) ยถ 31,465 (C.D.Cal. July 30, 1981), aff'd, 677 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1982). Appellees argue that the Boren-Long limitations do not apply to Indiana.

  3. Randall v. Lukhard

    536 F. Supp. 723 (W.D. Va. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    At least two other courts have also invalidated transfer of assets rules for this same reason. See Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D.Ill. 1981), and Woodard v. St. Clair, No. J 78-0274(R) (S.D.Miss. Dec. 17, 1980). As the Dokos court stated, "the Federal provisions leave no room for recasting as 'actually available' any assets that the recipient or applicant has in fact relinquished."

  4. Randall v. Lukhard

    709 F.2d 257 (4th Cir. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    In Randall v. Lukhard, 709 F.2d 257 (4th Cir. 1983), relevant holdings adopted on rehearing en banc, 729 F.2d 966 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 872, 105 S.Ct. 222, 83 L.Ed.2d 152 (1984), we held that for statute of limitations purposes the date on which the plaintiffs' cause of action arose was that of the "final unfavorable administrative action" revoking eligibility for Medicaid. 709 F.2d at 262 n. 7.

    Several district courts have also reached this conclusion. See McFarland v. Mitchell, C.A. # C-80-0325 (D.Utah 1982); Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Woodward v. St. Clair, C.A. # J78-0274(R) (S.D.Miss. 1980).

  5. Harris v. Lukhard

    547 F. Supp. 1015 (W.D. Va. 1982)   Cited 7 times

    And regulations assuming that property transferred by an applicant is still available to pay medical bills are invalid. Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D.Ill. 1981); Buckner v. Maher, 424 F. Supp. 366 (D.Conn. 1976), aff'd, 434 U.S. 898, 98 S.Ct. 290, 54 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977). A review of Virginia law pertaining to tax assessments discloses no procedural defect that conclusively results in the over valuation of real property.

  6. Hecker v. Stark County Social Service Bd.

    527 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1995)   Cited 27 times
    Holding a support trust allows beneficiaries to compel distributions for support expenses

    A state's ยง 209(b) status does not insulate it from complying with the federal requirement that assets be actually available to an applicant. Dokos v. Miller, 517 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D. Ill. 1981). Because the Department's regulation treats the assets of a discretionary trust as actually available to a beneficiary-applicant, even though the applicant has no legal right to access those resources, it violates the federal "availability" principle and is invalid. Id.