The Surrogate's Court of Erie County has ruled against a Medicaid claim filed against the estate of Marie Ridge, who passed away in June 2023. The court's decision, issued on March 31, 2026, affects the estate's heirs, Sherry Regian and the late Charles Ridge, as they sought to contest the validity of the claim made by the New York State Department of Health and Erie County Department of Social Services. The ruling is significant as it addresses the responsibilities of estate fiduciaries in handling claims against estates and the requirements for such claims to be valid.
Marie Ridge, also known as Marie E. Ridge, died at the age of 79. She was survived by her two children, Sherry and Charles. Following her death, the siblings filed a petition to probate their mother's Last Will and Testament, which was dated October 11, 2022. On March 18, 2024, they were appointed as co-executors of the estate. The will stipulated that Sherry and Charles would inherit the estate equally.
However, nearly nine months after the issuance of letters testamentary, a claim was filed by HMS, Inc. on behalf of the New York State Medicaid Program, seeking $43,159.94 for medical assistance allegedly provided to Ridge prior to her death. Sherry Regian contested the claim, arguing that it was filed too late and was therefore invalid. This dispute led to a hearing held on December 15, 2025, where Sherry was the only witness to testify.
During the hearing, Sherry explained that the claim was received almost nine months after she had been appointed as fiduciary. She testified that the estate had settled all legitimate claims, including medical bills, that had been presented in a timely manner. Sherry stated that when she received the Medicaid claim in December 2024, she attempted to contact the agency to understand the basis of the claim but was met with unresponsiveness. Despite her efforts to gather information, she was unable to ascertain what the claim was for.
The court filing noted that Sherry's attorney had also reached out to HMS for documentation to substantiate the claim but received no response. The Claimant, which included the New York State Department of Health and Erie County Department of Social Services, failed to appear at the citation return date or the evidentiary hearing. This absence raised questions about the validity of the claim.
The court ruled that the Claimant had the burden of proving the validity of the claim by clear and convincing evidence, a standard that was not met. Judge Acea M. Mosey stated, "I do not believe that the law requires a fiduciary to accept a Claim presented to her and simply pay it without any explanation or supporting documentation." The court emphasized that Sherry had taken all reasonable steps to determine the nature of the claim and that the Claimant's silence throughout the proceedings justified dismissing the claim.
As a result, the court dismissed the Medicaid claim against the estate of Marie Ridge, concluding that the Claim was not valid. This decision serves as the official Order and Decree of the court, meaning no further orders are required.
The ruling has implications for future cases involving claims against estates, particularly regarding the responsibilities of fiduciaries to question claims that lack documentation and the importance of timely filing claims. It reinforces the notion that claimants must be diligent in presenting their claims and responding to inquiries from estate representatives.
Going forward, this ruling may impact how Medicaid and other government agencies pursue claims against estates. It highlights the necessity for these agencies to provide adequate documentation and respond to inquiries from fiduciaries in a timely manner. The decision could set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need for clear communication and documentation in claims against estates.
As for what comes next, the Claimant may consider appealing the decision, though details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of related cases pending that could affect this ruling.