Forsyth v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Haesche v. Kissner (1994), Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook (1996)
76 state decisions — followed in 13 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Schweiker v. Gray Panthers · Atkins v. Rivera · Rose v. Freedom of Information Commission · Anderson v. Ludgin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“provisions designed to assure that individuals receiving nursing home and other long-term care services under Medicaid are in fact poor and have not transferred assets that should be used to purchase the needed services before Medicaid benefits are made available.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[A] `medicaid qualifying trust' is a trust, or similar legal device, established (other than by will) by an individual (or an individual's spouse) under which the individual may be the beneficiary of all or part of the payments from the trust and the distribution of such payments is determined by one or more trustees who are permitted to exercise any discretion with respect to the distribution to the individual" (Emphasis added.) 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (k)(2). The portion of principal and income from a medicaid qualifying trust considered "available" to an applicant "is the maximum amount of payments that may be permitted under the terms of the trust to be distributed to the grantor, assuming the full exercise of discretion by the trustee or trustees for the distribution of the maximum amount to the grantor." 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (k)(1). 226 Conn. at 825 . Section 1396a(k) was enacted as a response to the use of irrevocable inter vivos trusts to transfer one's own assets and qualify for medicaid benefits. The availability requirement; 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a)(17); had created a loophole by which individuals anticipating the need for expensive long-term medical care could impoverish themselves and qualify for medicaid assistance while preserving their resources for their heirs. Assets or income held in irrevocable trusts are not considered resources to a beneficiary or applicant because the asset is not "available" to the grantor. Zeoli v. Commissioner of Social Services,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As originally enacted [the] Medicaid [Act] required participating States to provide medical assistance to categorically needy individuals who received cash payments under one of four welfare programs established elsewhere in the Act. . . . The categorically needy were persons whom Congress considered especially deserving of public assistance because of family circumstances, age, or disability. States, if they wished, were permitted to offer assistance also to the medically needy — persons lacking the ability to pay for medical expenses, but with incomes [or resources] too large to qualify for categorical assistance. Schweiker v. Gray Panthers , 453 U.S. 34 , 37 , 101 S.Ct. 2633 , 69 L.Ed.2d 460 (1981). [ Matarazzo v. Rowe , supra, 225 Conn. 319 .] Connecticut has chosen to cover the medically needy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.