Morenz v. Wilson-Coker
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
415 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2005)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In 2004, nursing-home resident Robert Morenz (plaintiff) applied for Medicaid through the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS) (defendant). Robert’s wife, Clara Morenz (plaintiff), held his power of attorney and completed the application on his behalf. The application included an assignment of spousal-support rights to the state, purporting to transfer to the state any rights Robert had to support from Clara. Clara also submitted a spousal refusal statement in her own name, stating that she refused to further contribute to Robert’s financial support. When assessing Robert’s Medicaid eligibility, the DSS concluded that the assets in his own name were within an institutionalized spouse’s personal limit for Medicaid eligibility. However, it determined that the assets in Clara’s name exceeded the community-spouse resource allowance (CSRA), or the amount that a community spouse was entitled to retain, by approximately $157,500. The DSS therefore concluded that Robert was not Medicaid eligible until the assets in Clara’s name had been spent down. Robert and Clara sued the DSS to challenge its determination, arguing that because Robert had assigned his spousal-support rights to the state, the DSS could not consider Clara’s assets when determining Robert’s Medicaid eligibility. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in the Morenzes’ favor. The DSS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Calabresi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


