The MassHealth agency had issued a denial that included trustee compensation as one of the reasons, then the lawyer representing the agency waived the issue; see pages 5 and 22 of the decision. (Does the MassHealth agency really believe it is entitled to enforce its legal positions selectively?)

Appeal 1901927

Appellant’s Brief on Appeal 1901927

MassHealth Agency’s Brief on Appeal 1901927

Fair Hearing Decision 1901927

Appeal 1818863

Appellant Brief 1818863

Fair Hearing Decision 1818863

MassHealth Brief 1818863

Appeal 1814090

In this case, the MassHealth agency unsuccessfully argued that the vested beneficiaries of a nominee realty trust could amend the trust to give their ownership rights back to the MassHealth applicant, who had established the trust. Since the MassHealth applicant had a life estate in the trust, and since the trust provided that any beneficiary could terminate the trust, the life estate of the MassHealth applicant was deemed to be a countable asset.

Fair Hearing Decision 1814090

redacted Appellant’s brief

Exhibits A-C

Exhibits D-H

MassHealth agency’s memo

Appeal 1615211

MassHealth memo on Appeal 1615211

Appeal 1104515

MassHealth’s Superior Court Opposition Brief (This is the Parsons case. Note that the “available” home argument was not made here, despite misrepresentations from the Office of Attorney General in court cases that the agency made that argument.)