MCCA includes a mechanism for increasing both the CSRA and the MMMNA in certain cases. The methods by which this can be effected are described in 1396r-5(e), (d)(5) and (f)(3). Blumberg v. Tennessee Department of Human Resources, 2000 WL 1586454 (Tenn.Ct.App.) was a case where a Community Spouse sought a court adjustment of the default CSRA and MMMNA:
Frederic Blumberg (‘Blumberg’) filed a petition against his wife in the Sumner County Circuit Court, seeking all his wife’s marital assets and an increase in his minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance. On September 16, 1998, the Sumner County Circuit Court issued an Order requiring Mrs. Blumberg to pay as support for the benefit of Mr. Blumberg, all of her monthly income. Subsequently, Blumberg applied for Medicaid benefits on behalf of Mrs. Blumberg, administered by the Tennessee Department of Human Services (“DHS”), for which he was approved. On October 26, 1998, Blumberg received notice from DHS that his request for an income allocation was denied. Thereafter, Blumberg requested an administrative hearing appealing the denial of spousal allocations. On December 8, 1998, an administrative hearing with DHS was held, and Blumberg’s appeal was denied. The Chancery Court affirmed the decision of the DHS, finding that the support order was not validly adjudicated because of lack of notice to DHS.
On August 27, 1998, Mr. Blumberg had filed a petition in Circuit Court against his wife seeking a transfer of her marital property and an increase in the MMMNA. The court ordered Mrs. Blumberg to pay all of her monthly income to her husband as a community spouse allowance (increased MMMNA). Thereafter, Blumberg filed an application for Medicaid benefits and was denied. Blumberg appealed from that denial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that where a spouse seeks to increase the MMMNA, MCCA “sets out two different and independent avenues of procedure that can be followed in setting the increase.” Id., *2. First, 1396r-5(e)(2) gives the Community Spouse an opportunity to demonstrate needs beyond the MMMNA in an administrative Medicaid fair hearing. Alternatively, 1396r-5(d)(5) gives the Community Spouse a judicial option, by permitting her (or in this case, him) to seek court ordered support. “If a court has entered an order against an Institutionalized Spouse for monthly income for the support of the Community Spouse, the Community Spouse monthly income allowance for the spouse shall not be less than the amount of the monthly income so ordered.” Id., at *3.
Although the Tennessee legislature attempted to prevent Blumberg-type actions with its revision of T.C.A.§ 71-5-121, the advantage of pursuing the judicial option, in part, is the court’s familiarity with real life budgeting needs. Since MCCA does not prescribe the standard applied by the court when entering an order of support, the court has two options: first, apply the same standard used in fair hearing; second, apply the standard ordinarily applied in domestic relations cases.
