High Court Finds Children Must Support Some Parents
If today were not the day after April Fools Day, it might seem a ruse to report that support of indigent parents by adult children in Pennsylvania is allowed to stand but it is true. In a process, known as allocatur, similar to certiorari used by the United States Supreme Court, the State Supreme Court can refuse to hear a case. In this case it did refuse and the decision of the lower court in HCRA V. Pittas (2012 Pa. Super 96, May 7, 2012), which I reported earlier (See Daily Local News, September 11, 2012) was allowed to stand and become the law of the land. This means that, in particular, if a parent runs out of funds in a Pennsylvania nursing home and a Medicaid application is not successful, the children can be sued for the bill. The same applies to assisted living and medical providers although the law has not at this time been extended outside the medical field.
The state legislature could vote to change this but change is not on the near horizon. Two bills have been introduced. One in the Senate, SB70 and one in the House, HB 224.
How this happened requires some history. In July, 2005, during the night of the now well known “pay raise” debate, a bill that came to be known as Act 43, found its way into the Pennsylvania budget. In a few words, Act 43 added to the groups of people responsible for support the provision that children would be responsible for support of indigent parents (and conversely that parents could be responsible for indigent children regardless of age). The law moved old unused sections of the Welfare Code into the Support Law, the same law that governs, for example, support of minor children. Today it is contained at 42 Pa. C.S.A sections 4601-4606, After passage of Act 43, Medical providers including nursing homes and assisted living communities began suing adult children directly. The Pittas case affirms this practice.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court case, HCRA v. Pittas, decided in May, 2012 interpreted the law to find that a son was responsible for his mother’s nursing home bill of $92,943 only on the basis that he was her son and not from any fault of his own.
The parent needs to be “indigent,” which, under Pittas means unable to pay and not have deserted the adult child for a lengthy period during his childhood. There are also limitations if the adult child is unable to pay. Otherwise, unless Medicaid or some other payment source can be located and used, adult children are at risk..
In Pittas, Maryann Pittas of Schwenksville was injured with her husband, Andrew, in a head-on collision. After being in a coma and suffering a stroke, eventually, after a lengthy rehabilitation, she was moved to Greece to be with other relatives, leaving her son, a local restaurant owner behind.
The nursing home owned by HCR Manor Care brought suit for the bill against her son under the filial responsibility law. Mr. Pittas won in arbitration in 2008 but lost in Common Pleas Court when the nursing home appealed. In May, a three judge panel affirmed the lower court decision and let the judgment against the son for almost $93,000 stand. They found that he should be able to pay the bill based on the joint income of himself and his wife of $85,000.
As I reported before, several factors make the Pittas case especially disturbing,
First, it is an appellate Court decision. Now it is allowed to stand by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and is the law of the land.
Second, there was no indication that the son had received any funds or taken anything from the parent.
The judgment was against one son even though he had other siblings and Mrs. Pittas’ husband was also living although they were not as readily available. Indigency was interpreted to mean that Mrs. Pittas did not have enough to pay the bill.
The case could result in action in other states or could be overturned by legislation. Stay tuned.
About the Author Janet Colliton
Esquire, Colliton Law Associates, P.C. Janet Colliton has practiced law for over 38 years, 37 of them in Chester County, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia. Her practice, Colliton Law Associates, PC, is limited to elder law, Medicaid, including advice, applications and appeals, and other benefits planning including Veterans benefits, life care and special needs planning, guardianships, retirement, and estate planning and administration.