DDS Case Summary

A designated office within the state agency is responsible for coordinating, scheduling, and facilitating appeals for Medicaid beneficiaries. All appeals are heard by an impartial hearing officer employed by or on contract with the Agency. The designated office handles the appeals process from receipt of the request from a beneficiary/client through the final administrative decision. During the hearing process, the designated office is responsible for ensuring that the use or disclosure of beneficiary information is in compliance with federal law (HIPAA), state law and Division of Medicaid policies, and procedures regarding the safeguarding of beneficiary information.

On 6/30/2016, CM met with the client to complete to Bi-Weekly ILP Review. In the meeting, client was dressed appropriately for the weather. She was very loquacious and client. Client appears to have difficulty sustaining attention, client does not seem to listen when spoken to directly and she is unable to follow through on tasks. Client affect is inappropriate and she denied suicidal or homicidal ideation.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Mr. Williams applied for Supplemental Social Income (SSI), on August 3, 2015. The Office of Appeals verified with the SSA that Mr. Williams received an unfavorable disability decision, and he currently has a pending claim. Until this unfavorable disability finding is changed by the SSA, DOM must abide by the SSA decision. Accordingly, the RO’s decision is supported by substantial

The claimant has issues managing funds. His wife takes care of his finances. He says that he could live independently but it would be hard for him. He is able to make important, future decisions and seek out any resources that might assist him in making those decisions. In the last year, the claimant’s father passed away. He has been depressed since this happened and

It appears that Ms. Smyth sent a request to Jim (Assigned Case Manager) to amend her claim on August 25, 2015. On August 27, 2015, Ms. Smyth provided the amendment information to Jim.

Ms. Almanza confirmed that the claimant’s employment commenced on 10/22/2008 after the claimant filed and signed a Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form, which included a W-4 form for tax withholdings. Ms. Almanza stated she was unable to provide information about the claimant’s past employment history, as the Insured does not provide or request for any of their Date laborer employees to complete an employment

This 66 year old is filing a DIB claim alleging disability due to stroke, fatigue, headache, mixed hyperlipidemia, hypertensive heart disease, benign heart failure, cerebrovascular left hemiparesis, allergic rhinitis, pollen induced, acid reflux disease, depression, benign hypotrophy, PTSD, elevated PSA, abnormal glucose, and a Vitamin D deficiency of 04/11/2014.

The patient is very independent in his home and is able to perform all ADLS within the home without any addtional assistance. MSW asked patient if he was interested in any addtional care giving support in the home, but patient declined addtional support at this time. Patinet stated he gets transportation from his neiabors to the store when needed. MSW offered the patient additional transportation services, but the patient declined needing any addtional transportation services at this time.Patient reported falling back in 2004 off the steps and was air lifted to the hospital. Patient reports having diffculty paying doctors and helicoter bills. Patinet's only income is through SS for $847. Patient reported that was the only time he was fallen in his life. Patinet has only been in the hospital two times during his lifetime. MSW offered life alert services, but the patient was not interested. Patient stated his only concern was being able to afford his doctor and helicotor transportion bills. MSW connected AHCCCS and spoke to represtative regarding getting patient signed up for the medicare savings program. Representative stated the patient has already applied for AHCCCS back in

The anomalous claim (DIB) filed on 08/03/2017. We obtained the necessary document form the NH on 09/15/17 and completed the subsequent requirements on 10/12/17. Please let me know

The DDS set an onset of 5/11/15. This is the date the PFTs were taken. Given the close proximity to the requirements for listing level severity, and the claimant’s PFT results: the evidence in file supports this assessment. However, Trail mail indicates the claimant’s impairment was severe enough to equal the listing as of 1/9/15. This is the date she was prescribed oxygen use during the day.

You assert discrimination based on disability as you report having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and were not granted a reasonable accommodation to be interviewed at the DHS office when requested on October 8, 2015 in an alleged phone call with (SU) around noon. You assert that LEA presence at your home caused increased anxiety when they arrived with DHS to conduct an interview with you.

Client came into social service after receiving a SUS appointment slip left at the front desk by CM 10/3/17 to meet on 10/5/17 at 4pm. Client stated she only had a few minutes to talk because she had to cook dinner. Client informed CM her PA account was closed and she replied once again. Client also reports she has to visit Connecticut, PA office for a letter stating her PA case is closed in that state. Client informed her CM all documents requested will be submitted within a weeks’ time. Client reports two of her four daughters Selah McKenzie and Olivia Lue have a doctor appointment tomorrow October, 5, 2017. The other two daughters, Trinity and Nyan McKenzie have appointments next week Tuesday on October 10,

He believes the claimant is embellishing her alleged claim, after she had been terminated as an employee on 2-21-15. He