WPCG+ a#vwl 8m48U6A'hFq*0SN #K2 rVq%YD˲h)hҁ (=V(^v .qM"܍%+՗2vZMQ,ֱ b7:Hȱ쥯}(;}J S6Nauv;eVS|xW'R֓$s +OdG=DSI52imuZ9■4c"ۤMB( dqUjAF~r`NVK_{^7P>fY\b@#_5lTlBBO[_=X"Uu?Y7jRIx.aQ@D/M;oKoP L@8qao[(]hxՄ&T uq0Fnoh7b vى~0:f֨:U>,j 0 h 0b 0Y 0P 0D 08 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l 0K 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0r 0S 01 0 0 0 0lc! 0<! 0~ " 0@" 0aT" 0# 0:## 0%U>& 1e& 7L'Z' 0j'# (UN) %/*M5*(9*Na*^ c* 1uo* 72*w+4+.+ m0+\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLEILLELA satisfied Microsoft Office UserL0A satisfied Microsoft Office User .   2P+M 0_level1  , 8.4 <DL!823  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2M+M 0_level3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level4   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2J+M 0_level5   2( <DL!223  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level6   /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2G+M 0_level7  4 /% <DL!/23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2D+M 0_level9   ,"h hhDL!,23  ..  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levsl1  , 8.4 <DL!823  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levsl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl4   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levsl5   2( <DL!223  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl6   /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levsl7  4 /% <DL!/23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levsl9   ,"h hhDL!,23  Ԁ  5+ 4 <DL!5  2PM 0_levnl1  , 8.4 <DL!823   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl2  X 5+4 44 <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2MM 0_levnl3   5+` ` ` <DL!523   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl4   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2JM 0_levnl5   2( <DL!223   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl6   /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2GM 0_levnl7  4 /% <DL!/23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl8  ` ,"< <<DL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  2DM 0_levnl9   ,"h hhDL!,23   5+ 4 <DL!5  64 '4Heading 1       XXX 6 4Heading 2       <:Default Para6$$ 4Body Text       XXX: 8Body Text 2 <  :Body Text In X X 0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number  ')..      .XsXX.XXsXX.Xs  _! !X!%  ˜XXsXsX˜(XsXXXs$$ !!$  $R  %'  XsXX(Xs(2$ ,)y!..      .XsXX.XXsXX.Xs  \  `&Times New Roman 35;AGMSY_1I.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.) i.#|x()y$..      .XsXX.XXsXX.XsHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular.XY) 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)4i)sM) ݢne U ,)y!..      .XsXX.XXsXX.Xs  _       XX8sXXdd8&! XXs    !T  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICT  OFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLE!T݌ 2 Ќ  XsX      XXsK       &    _Fredric_Ԁ_Blumberg_Ԁv.TennesseeDepartmentofHumanServices  Ԍ F Ќ   K  K  'F     &  Q  XsXKDirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforSumnerCountyQ  pԌ ^  Ќ   No.99C84TomE.Gray,Chancellor'^  D  _____________  ` No.M200000237_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2000_ ,  _____________      4 Frederic_Blumberg_Ԁ( _Blumberg_)filedapetitionagainsthiswifeintheSumner   CountyCircuitCourt,seekingallhiswifesmaritalassetsandanincreaseinhis t  minimummonthlymaintenanceneedsallowance.OnSeptember16,1998,theSumner Z CountyCircuitCourtissuedanOrderrequiringMrs._Blumberg_Ԁtopayassupportforthe @ benefitofMr._Blumberg_,allofhermonthlyincome.Subsequently,_Blumberg_Ԁapplied &v forMedicaidbenefitsonbehalfofMrs._Blumberg_,administeredbytheTennessee  \ DepartmentofHumanServices( _DHS_),forwhichhewasapproved.OnOctober26, B 1998,_Blumberg_Ԁreceivednoticefrom_DHS_Ԁthathisrequestforanincomeallocationwas ( denied.Thereafter,_Blumberg_Ԁrequestedanadministrativehearingappealingthedenial  of_spousal_Ԁallocations.OnDecember8,1998,anadministrativehearingwith_DHS_Ԁwas  held,and_Blumberg_sappealwasdenied.TheChanceryCourtaffirmedthedecisionof  the_DHS_,findingthatthesupportorderwasnotvalidlyadjudicatedbecauseoflackof p noticeto_DHS_.Thisappealfollowed. V "   "   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheSumnerCountyChancery "r CourtReversed" ݌ X Ќ  ASH,SpecialJudgeDonR.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJudge  $ CRAWFORDandJudgeFARMER,joined. !  TimothyL._Takacs_,_Hendersonville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Frederic_Blumberg_. #! PamelaA.HaydenWood,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartment R% # ofHumanServices. 8&!$       &    OPINION  Ԍ (T#& Ќ   '(̀I. 4  ) %(  4 _Fredric_Ԁ_Blumberg_swifeisaresidentofanursinghomeinSumnerCounty.On +&* August27,1998_Blumberg_ԀfiledapetitionagainsthiswifeintheSumnerCountyCircuit ,'+ Court,seekingatransferofhermaritalpropertyandanincreaseinhisminimummonthly h-(, _maintenanceneedsallowance( MMMNA).TheCourtorderedMrs.Blumbergtopay  allofhermonthlyincometoMr.Blumbergascommunityspouseallowance.This  amountedto$405amonthinSocialSecuritybenefits.Additionally,theCourtordered | thatthecommunityspousemonthlyincomeallowancenotbeincludedinthepatient b liabilitycomputation.Unfortunately,DHSwasnotgivennoticeofthefilingofthe H complaintbyBlumberg. . ~  4 OnSeptember14,1998BlumbergfiledaMedicaidapplicationonbehalfofMrs.  J Blumberg.ShewasapprovedfortheMedicaidbenefitsbyDHS.However,Blumbergs  0 requestforincreasedincomeallocationwasdenied.Further,DHSruledthatMrs.    Blumbergsmonthlyincomewastobeappliedtoher patientliabilityinsteadof    Blumbergscourtorderedincomeallowance.DHSeffectivelyfailedtorecognizethe   CircuitCourtOrder.Thereafter,Mrs.Blumbergfiledanappealofthisdecision x  requestingahearing.Subsequently,ahearingwithDHSwasheld,andMrs.Blumbergs ^  appealwasdenied.TheinitialOrderwasissuedFebruary9,1999.AfinalOrderwas D  issuedupholdingthepreliminaryorderoftheHearingOfficeronFebruary22,1999. *z   4 BlumbergfiledaPetitionforReviewinSumnerCountyChanceryCourt.On F January4,2000,theChanceryCourtaffirmedDHSdecision.TheCourtfoundthat , BlumbergmisrepresentedMedicaidprovisionsinCircuitCourtwhenheclaimedthatthe  allocationofMrs.Blumbergsentiremonthlyincomewouldnotaffecthereligibilityfor  benefits.Furthermore,theCourtfoundthattheCircuitCourtsorderofspousalsupport  wasnotvalidlyadjudicatedbecauseDHShadnotreceivednoticeoftheproceedings, t thusprecludingthemfromanopportunitytobeheard.Thisappealfollowed. Z ̀II. 4  &v  4 TheissuesbeforetheCourtiswhetherDHSshouldberequiredtofollowthe B OrderoftheSumnerCountyCircuitCourtandwhetherDHSandtheChanceryCourt ( exceededitsjurisdictionbyreversingtheOrderoftheCircuitCourt.UndertheUniform  AdministrativeProceduresAct,afinaldecisionofastateagencymaybereversedor  modifiediftheplaintiffsrightshavebeenprejudicedbecausetheadministrativefindings   andconclusionsare:(1)inviolationofastatuteorconstitution,(2)inexcessofthe p!  agencysstatutoryauthority,(3)madeuponanunlawfulprocedure,(4)arbitraryor V"! capriciousorcharacterizedbyanabuseorclearlyunwarrantedexerciseofdiscretion,or <#" (5)unsupportedbysubstantialandmaterialevidence. See Tenn.CodeAnn.45 "$r# 322(h).Thetrialcourtandtheagencysconstructionofastatuteinvolvesaquestionof %X $ law.Therefore,ourreviewissubjecttodenovoreview. BeareCo.v.Tennessee %>!% DepartmentofRevenue ,858S.W.2d906(Tenn.1993). &$"&  ) (034/ /""  ,B.4 <DL!XB    ,E(  <DL!4X!E"2  III  .3      "#݌ (#( Ќ  $ X X!$   # X  ##  Thisispurelyamatterofstatutoryconstruction.Inordertomakeastatutory l*%* constructiondetermination,wemustfirstlookatthelanguageofthestatuteandapplyits R+&+ ordinaryandplainmeaning. Eg.,Riggsv.Burgon ,941S.W.2d44,54(Tenn.1997).If 8,', theintentcanbedeterminedfromtheplainlanguageofthestatute,thecourtsinquiry -n(- stopsthere. Storeyv.BradfordFurnitureCo. ,910S.W.2d857(Tenn.1995).  However,whentheplainlanguageofthestatutedoesnotprovideaclearinterpretation,  courtsgenerallylookatthelegislaturesintenttoascertainastatutesmeaning. Owens | v.State ,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995); Locustv.State ,912S.W.2d716,718 b (Tenn.Ct.App.1995). Thecardinalruleofstatutoryconstructionistoeffectuate H legislativeintent,withallrulesofconstructionbeingaidestothatend. Browderv. . ~ Morris ,975S.W.2d308,311(Tenn.1998).##$݌  d Ќ X  # X  #)  #)0)݌  J Ќ X  # X  #)  Withtheseprinciplesinmind,wenextconsiderthestatutethatisthefocusofthis  0 appeal.Webeginouranalysisofthisissuewithabriefhistoricaloverviewofthe    MedicareCatastrophicCoverageActof1988(TheAct).TheAct,amendedfromthe    originalMedicaidActisthecentralstatutepresentedbeforethisCourt.Thisnewsection   1942totheSocialSecurityActwascodifiedatTitle42,1396r5(d)oftheUnited x  StatesCode,entitled Protectingincomeforcommunityspouse.Acommunityspouse ^  asdefinedby42U.S.C.1396r5(h)(2)meansthespouseofaninstitutionalizedspouse. D  TheActestablishesaminimumspousalmonthlyneedsallowanceforcommunity *z  spouses.42U.S.C.1396r5(d)(3)(A)(i),(B)(iii).EachstateparticipatinginMedicaid ` programimplementstheStatePlanthrougha SingleStateagency,promulgatingits F ownrulesandproceduresforoperationofthePlan.42U.S.C.1396a(a)(5). , Accordingly,theagencyinTennesseethatadministersMedicaidisDHS.#))݌  Ќ X  # X  #/  #///݌  Ќ X  # X  #/  Ifacommunityspouseseeksanincreaseinspousalincomeallowance  (MMMNA),theActsetsouttwodifferentandindependentavenuesofprocedurethatcan t befollowedinsettingtheincrease.Theproceduresarefoundin42U.S.C.1396r Z 5(d)(5)and42U.S.C.1396r5(e).42U.S.C.1396r5(e)(2)givesthecommunity @ spouseachancetodemonstrateaneedformoreincomethantheallowancethatwould &v haveotherwisebeencalculatedunder42U.S.C.1396r5(d).Thisisaccomplished  \ throughanadministrativeMedicaidfairhearing.#//݌ B Ќ X  # X  #2  #22݌ ( Ќ X  # X  #R3  Additionally,42U.S.C.1396r5(d)(5)givesthecommunityspouseajudicial  optionforcourtorderedsupport.Thestatuteprovides,insubsection(d)(5),asfollows:   Ifacourthasenteredanorderagainstaninstitutionalizedspouseformonthlyincome   forthesupportofthecommunityspouse,thecommunityspousemonthlyincome p!  allowanceforthespouseshallnotbelessthantheamountofthemonthlyincomeso V"! ordered.Thus,thecruxofthelitigationinthecasehingesonwhetherthesetwo <#" provisionsareabsolutealternativemethods.#R3{3݌ "$r# Ќ X  # X  #6  #66݌ %X $ Ќ X  # X  #7  Intheinstantcase,Blumbergelectedtogothejudicialroutebyobtainingacourt %>!% orderfromSumnerCountyCircuitCourtsettingtheamountofsupportowedbyMrs. &$"& Blumbergtohercommunityspouse,Mr.Blumberg.Thisrouteiswithintheambitofthe ' #' statute.#7=7݌ (#( Ќ X  # X  #8  #89݌ )$) Ќ X  # X  #u9  Conversely,DHSmaintainedtheChanceryCourtwascorrectinitsholdingof l*%* theiradministrativedecisionthatthesupportorderwasimproperlyadjudicatedbecause R+&+ ofBlumbergsfailuretoprovidethemwithnotice.ThisCourtisnotpersuadedbythe 8,', DHSargument.Weareoftheopinionthatthestatuteitselfdoesnotprecludeeitherside -n(- frommakingthechoicetheyprefer. Thecourtshouldassumethatthelegislatureused  eachwordinthestatutepurposelyandthattheuseofthesewordsconveyedsomeintent  andhadameaningandapurpose. AndersonFish&OysterCompanyv.Olds ,277 | S.W.2d344,346(1955); Chadwellv.KnoxCountyTennessee ,980S.W.2d378,382.#u99݌ b Ќ X  # X  #^=  #^==݌ H Ќ X  # X  #=  Althoughasinglestandardwouldbeidealtofacilitatethisprocess,absencean . ~ actionbythelegislaturestatingthecontrarywecanonlyinterprettheirintent.Wetake  d thepositionthatthelegislatureinenactingtheAct usedeachwordpurposelyandthe  J useofthesewordsconveyedsomeintent. Id. 󀀀Moreover,hadthelegislatureintendeda  0 differentinterpretation,itcouldsimplyhavestatedinpreciselanguagethatthe    administrativeprocessistheonlyprocedureavailable.However,thelegislaturedidnot    dothis.Consequently,theyprovidedtwoabsolutealternativemethodsofsettinga   spousesallowanceandweareboundtorecognizebothprocedures.Thus,DHSwas x  withouttheauthoritytoignoretheCircuitCourtOrderofspousalsupport.#=>݌ ^  Ќ X  # X  #,B  #,BUB݌ D  Ќ X  ""  ,B.4 <DL!XB    ,E(  <DL!4X!EB2  IV  .3      BC݌ *z  Ќ  $ X X!$   # X  X B.4 <DL!XB#{D  #{DE݌̌   # X  #TE  Anotherinterestingnotionpertainingtothislitigationistheissueofnotice.The F presentstateoftheActdoesnotrequirespousestogivenoticeinactionsofthisnature. , ThetrialcourtdidnotreachtheissuepresentedtothisCourtbutinsteadheldthatDHS  didnotreceivenoticeofBlumbergsapplicationtotheCircuitCourt.TheChancery  CourtfoundthattheCircuitCourtsOrderwasnotbindingbecauseofalackofnotice,  therefore,theproceedingwasnot properlyadjudicated.Althoughitwouldbegood t policytogivenoticeandDHSwouldprefersucharule,noauthorityexistsstatingnotice Z asarequirement.ItwouldnotbeproperinthiscasetoholdBlumbergresponsiblefora @ ruleoflawthatdoesnotexist.Infact,theinitialactionattheCircuitCourtlevelwas &v betweenMr.BlumbergandMrs.Blumberg.OnceDHSreceivednoticethattheyhadin  \ factgoneovertheMMMNA,theycouldhavefiledamotiontosetasidetheCircuit B CourtOrderandallowthemtointervene.#TEE݌ ( Ќ X  # X  #J  #JJ݌  Ќ X  # X  #XK  Relieffromanordermaybegrantedtoapartyforreasonsincludingthefollowing  setforthunderRule60.02: (1)mistake,inadvertence,surpriseorexcusableneglect;(2)   fraud,misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty;8or(5)anyother p!  reasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.Themotionshallbemade V"! withinareasonabletime,andforreasons(1)and(2)notmorethanoneyearafterthe <#" judgment,orderorproceedingwasenteredortaken.Here,DHSfailedtoseekRule "$r# 60.02reliefwhenitwaswellwithintheirreach.#XKK݌ %X $ Ќ X  # X  X#N  #NN݌̌   # X  X#+O  ݀V.#+ObO݌ &$"& Ќ   # X  X#O  #OP݌̌   # X  #YP  Weconcludethatnoticewasnotanissuebecausethereisnoauthorityrequiring (#( BlumbergtoprovidenoticetoDHSofhisactionintheCircuitCourtofSumnerCounty. )$) Additionally,theMedicareCatastrophicCoverageActof1988providesabsolute l*%* alternativemethodsofprocedure.Furthermore,itisobvioustheBlumbergsrightshave R+&+ beenprejudicedbecauseDHSadministrativefindingswere:(1)inviolationoftheAct; 8,', (2)inexcessoftheirstatutoryauthority;and(3)madeuponunlawfulprocedurewhen -n(- theyessentiallyusedanadministrativehearingandChanceryCourttoactasanappellate  courtwithregardtoaCircuitCourtruling.SeeT.C.A45322(h).#YPP݌  Ќ X  # X  #T  #TDT݌ | Ќ X  # X  #T  ThejudgmentoftheChanceryCourtisreversedandremandedbacktothetrial b courtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessaryconsistentwiththisopinion. H CostsofthisappealareassessedagainsttheDepartmentofHumanServices.#TT݌ . ~ Ќ X  # X  X#SV  #SVV݌̌   # X  X#V   l #VW݌̌   # X  X#qW  #qWW݌̌   # X  X#W  #W1X݌̌   # X  X#X   l #XX݌̌   # X  #Y      t    $  |    ,     #YAY݌̌ X  # X  #Z      t    $  | JudgeDonR.Ash#Z:Z݌ x  Ќ X  # X  #Z  #Z![݌ ^  Ќ X  X D   *z   X