{
  "id": 8524800,
  "name": "SHARON YATES for WILLIAM McCOMBS v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Yates v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8919SC781",
  "first_page": "402",
  "last_page": "405",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.C. App. 402"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523171
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 707",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2492717,
        2491216,
        2488499,
        2492885,
        2490360
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0707-04",
        "/nc/325/0707-03",
        "/nc/325/0707-02",
        "/nc/325/0707-01",
        "/nc/325/0707-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "382 S.E.2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.C. App. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520631
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/95/0324-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S.E.2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561548
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "164",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560749
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "492",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 S.E.2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "416"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.C. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4779108
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "692"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/317/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "376"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169685
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "152"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 5482,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4839204976600362e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6616115456924323
    },
    "sha256": "420be4f27862d89cc3d2f3f69b74ba25e1645a5b0b1c6617135f3b8f08c22de6",
    "simhash": "1:80699da11cb42cb3",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:07.401162+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge PHILLIPS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHARON YATES for WILLIAM McCOMBS v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nOur initial inquiry is whether this appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The State asserts that only an \u201capplicant or recipient\u201d of Medicaid funds may petition for judicial review of the DHR\u2019s eligibility decision and Ms. Yates does not have \u201cstanding\u201d to bring a proceeding for judicial review to contest the denial of benefits to her father. Ms. Yates argues that lack of capacity is in issue and that lack of capacity does not affect subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the State cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal. We agree with the State\u2019s contention that this is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. The superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear Ms. Yates\u2019 petition for judicial review. Therefore, we dismiss Ms. Yates\u2019 purported appeal to this court.\n\u201cWhether one has standing to obtain judicial review of administrative decisions is a question of subject matter jurisdiction.\u201d Petition of Wheeler, 85 N.C. App. 150, 152, 354 S.E.2d 374, 376 (1987). Questions of subject matter jurisdiction may properly be raised at any time. See Forsyth County Bd. of Social Services v. Division of Social Services by Everhart, 317 N.C. 689, 692, 346 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1986).\n\u201cWhere a cause of action is created by 'statute and the statute also provides who is to bring the action, the person or persons so designated, and, ordinarily, only such persons, may sue.\u201d State ex rel. Lanier v. Vines, 274 N.C. 486, 492, 164 S.E.2d 161, 164 (1968) (citation omitted). No party has the right to appeal from an administrative agency\u2019s decision \u201cunless the right is granted by statute.\u201d In re Halifax Paper Co., 259 N.C. 589, 592, 131 S.E.2d 441, 444 (1963). See also Appeal of Moravian Home, Inc., 95 N.C. App. 324, 382 S.E.2d 772, rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 325 N.C. 707, 388 S.E.2d 457 (1989); Malloy v. Durham County Dep\u2019t of Social Services, 58 N.C. App. 61, 293 S.E.2d 285 (1982).\nThe statutory provision for judicial review of DHR\u2019s decisions regarding Medicaid eligibility states that \u201c[a]ny applicant or recipient who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the Department may file ... a petition for judicial review in superior court of the county from which the case arose.\u201d G.S. 108A-79(k) (emphasis ours). An \u201capplicant\u201d is \u201cany person who requests assistance or on whose behalf assistance is requested.\u201d G.S. 108A-24(1). A \u201crecipient\u201d is \u201ca person to whom, or on whose behalf, assistance is granted under this Article.\u201d G.S. 108A-24(5). Because Ms. Yates is neither an applicant or a recipient she has no right to appeal from the DHR\u2019s decision. Additionally, nothing in the record shows that Ms. Yates is the legal representative of her father\u2019s estate. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nWe do not address the difficult question of whether the actions of persons in Ms. Yates\u2019 position are adequate to preserve the rights of Medicaid applicants, recipients or their legal representatives to judicial review of DHR\u2019s eligibility decisions.\nFor the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed.\nDismissed.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge PHILLIPS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Central Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, and N.C. Legal Services Resource Center, Inc., by Pam Silberman, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Jane T. Friedensen, for the North Carolina Department of Human Resources."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHARON YATES for WILLIAM McCOMBS v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES\nNo. 8919SC781\n(Filed 1 May 1990)\nSocial Security and Public Welfare \u00a7 1 (NCI3d)\u2014 denial of Medicaid benefits to father \u2014 no standing of daughter to obtain judicial review\nPetitioner who was not an applicant or recipient of Medicaid benefits had no standing to obtain judicial review of respondent\u2019s eligibility decision concerning petitioner\u2019s father.\nAm Jur 2d, Welfare Laws \u00a7 40.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from order entered 9 June 1989 by Judge D. Marsh McLelland in ROWAN County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 1990.\nThis is a proceeding to judicially review a final order by the respondent, Department of Human Resources (DHR), denying an application for medical assistance benefits (Medicaid). Sharon Yates applied for benefits on behalf of her father (William McCombs), now deceased, on 15 August 1988, retroactive to May, 1988. On 10 October 1988 DHR denied the application based on its determination that Mr. McCombs had \u201cexcess reserves.\u201d Medicaid eligibility requirements set an asset ceiling of $2,250 for a two-person unit. Deceased and his wife had approximately $7,178 in non-exempt assets on the date of application. Mr. McCombs paid some of his accumulated medical bills, converted his stocks to a pre-need burial plan and reapplied for benefits. His application for Medicaid was approved as of 4 November 1988.\nBetween May and 4 November 1988 Mr. McCombs had incurred $51,578 in medical bills, $45,728 of which were not covered by insurance. Ms. Yates requested that her father be allowed to \u201cspend down\u201d resources (i.e., subtract his accumulated medical bills from his resources) retroactive to May so that on some date before 4 November his assets would be below the $2,250 ceiling. This request was denied and Ms. Yates appealed. After unsuccessful administrative appeals within DHR, Ms. Yates petitioned for judicial review in superior court. The superior court affirmed the decision of DHR and Ms. Yates appeals.\nCentral Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, and N.C. Legal Services Resource Center, Inc., by Pam Silberman, for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Jane T. Friedensen, for the North Carolina Department of Human Resources."
  },
  "file_name": "0402-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 433
}