Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Medicaid social services district entitled to audit funds distributed under the Health Care Reform Act (Matter of People Care Inc. v. NYC Human Resources Administration)

Posted on 2021-03-302021-03-30

As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether the New York City Human Resources Administration can audit and recover overpayments of reimbursements to a personal-care provider under the Health Care Reform Act. The Court (mem.) unanimously held that the Administration can conduct such an audit.

This case arises under Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for providing medical assistance to low-income people. In New York, the Department of Health administered Medicaid, in conjunction with local social services districts, including the New York City Human Resources Administration.

The Administration contracted in 2001 with People Care—which provides services such as feeding, bathing, and meal preparation to elderly Medicaid recipients—agreeing to reimburse People Care for its projected expenses. In return, People Care agreed that the Administration could audit People Care annually and recoup the amounts that the Administration’s reimbursements for projected expenses exceeded People Care’s actual expenses.

A year later, the Legislature passed the Health Care Reform Act, which provided funds for the recruitment and retention of personal-care workers, like People Care’s employees. During audits under its contract with People Care, the Administration found that People Care had received $7 million in excess funds under the Act and sought to recoup those funds. People Care challenged that determination, claiming that the Administration lacked the authority to audit funds distributed under the Act, which was passed a year after the contract that granted the Administration audit rights.

The Court rejected that challenge. The Court adopted the view of the dissenting justice in the Appellate Division: that the Administration’s right under the 2001 contract to audit People Care’s receipt of Medicaid funds entitled the Administration to audit People Care’s receipt of funds under the Act. Although that contract was signed before the Act was passed, it allowed the Administration to audit People Care’s receipt of Medicaid funds, and funds distributed under the Act are merely a subset of Medicaid funds.

By Scott on 2021-03-30.
Return to the case page.

.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com