Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 5160
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37 (2026)

Right of recovery for cost of medical assistance

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 96 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A medical assistance recipient's enrollment in a medical assistance program gives an automatic right of recovery to the department of medicaid and a county department of job and family services against the liability of a third party for the cost of medical assistance paid on behalf of the recipient. When an action or claim is brought against a third party by a medical assistance recipient, any payment, settlement or compromise of the action or claim, or any court award or judgment, is subject to the recovery right of the department of medicaid or county department. Except in the case of a medical assistance recipient who receives medical assistance through a medicaid managed care organization, the department's or county department's claim shall not exceed the amount of medical assistance paid by the department or county department on behalf of the recipient. A payment, settlement, compromise, judgment, or award that excludes the cost of medical assistance paid for by the department or county department shall not preclude a department from enforcing its rights under this section.

(B)(1) In the case of a medical assistance recipient who receives medical assistance through a medicaid managed care organization that has a capitation agreement with a provider, the amount of the department's or county department's claim shall be the amount the medicaid managed care organization would have paid in the absence of a capitation agreement.

(2) In the case of a medical assistance recipient who receives medical assistance through a medicaid managed care organization that does not have a capitation agreement with a provider, the amount of the department's or county department's claim shall be the amount the medicaid managed care organization pays for medical assistance rendered to the recipient, even if that amount is more than the amount the department or county department pays to the medicaid managed care organization for the recipient's medical assistance.

(C) A medical assistance recipient, and the recipient's attorney, if any, shall cooperate with the departments. In furtherance of this requirement, the medical assistance recipient, or the recipient's attorney, if any, shall, not later than thirty days after initiating informal recovery activity or filing a legal recovery action against a third party, provide written notice of the activity or action to the department of medicaid or county department if it has paid for medical assistance under a medical assistance program.

(D) The written notice that must be given under division (C) of this section shall disclose the identity and address of any third party against whom the medical assistance recipient has or may have a right of recovery.

(E) No settlement, compromise, judgment, or award or any recovery in any action or claim by a medical assistance recipient where the department or county department has a right of recovery shall be made final without first giving the department or county department written notice as described in division (C) of this section and a reasonable opportunity to perfect its rights of recovery. If the department or county department is not given the appropriate written notice, the medical assistance recipient and, if there is one, the recipient's attorney, are liable to reimburse the department or county department for the recovery received to the extent of medical assistance payments made by the department or county department.

(F) The department or county department shall be permitted to enforce its recovery rights against the third party even though it accepted prior payments in discharge of its rights under this section if, at the time the department or county department received such payments, it was not aware that additional medical expenses had been incurred but had not yet been paid by the department or county department. The third party becomes liable to the department or county department as soon as the third party is notified in writing of the valid claims for recovery under this section.

(G)(1) Subject to division (G)(2) of this section, the right of recovery of the department or county department does not apply to that portion of any judgment, award, settlement, or compromise of a claim, to the extent of attorneys' fees, costs, or other expenses incurred by a medical assistance recipient in securing the judgment, award, settlement, or compromise, or to the extent of medical, surgical, and hospital expenses paid by such recipient from the recipient's own resources.

(2) Reasonable attorneys' fees, not to exceed one-third of the total judgment, award, settlement, or compromise, plus costs and other expenses incurred by the medical assistance recipient in securing the judgment, award, settlement, or compromise, shall first be deducted from the total judgment, award, settlement, or compromise. After fees, costs, and other expenses are deducted from the total judgment, award, settlement, or compromise, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the department of medicaid or county department shall receive no less than one-half of the remaining amount, or the actual amount of medical assistance paid, whichever is less. A party may rebut the presumption in accordance with division (L)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as applicable.

(H) A right of recovery created by this section may be enforced separately or jointly by the department of medicaid or county department. To enforce its recovery rights, the department or county department may do any of the following:

(1) Intervene or join in any action or proceeding brought by the medical assistance recipient or on the recipient's behalf against any third party who may be liable for the cost of medical assistance paid;

(2) Institute and pursue legal proceedings against any third party who may be liable for the cost of medical assistance paid;

(3) Initiate legal proceedings in conjunction with any injured, diseased, or disabled medical assistance recipient or the recipient's attorney or representative.

(I) A medical assistance recipient shall not assess attorney fees, costs, or other expenses against the department of medicaid or a county department when the department or county department enforces its right of recovery created by this section.

(J) The right of recovery given to the department under this section includes payments made by a third party under contract with a person having a duty to support.

(K) The department of medicaid may assign to a medical assistance provider the right of recovery given to the department under this section with respect to any claim for which the department has notified the provider that the department intends to recoup the department's prior payment for the claim.

(L)(1) Prior to any payment to the department or a county department pursuant to the department's or county department's right of recovery under this section, a party that desires to rebut the presumption in division (G) of this section shall submit to the department or county department a request for a hearing in accordance with the procedure the department establishes in rules required by division (O) of this section. The amount sought by the department or county department shall be held in escrow or in an interest on lawyers' trust account until the hearing examiner renders a decision or the case is otherwise concluded. A party successfully rebuts the presumption by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that a different allocation is warranted.

(2) A medical assistance recipient who has repaid money, on or after September 29, 2007, to the department or a county department pursuant to the department's or county department's right of recovery under this section, section 5160.38 of the Revised Code, or former section 5101.58 or 5101.59 of the Revised Code may request a hearing to rebut the presumption in division (G) of this section. The request shall be made in accordance with the procedure the department establishes for this purpose in rules required by division (O) of this section. It must be made not later than one hundred eighty days after September 29, 2015, or ninety days after the payment is made, whichever is later. A party successfully rebuts the presumption by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that a different allocation is warranted.

(3) A medical assistance recipient who has repaid money, between April 6, 2007 and September 28, 2007, to the department or a county department pursuant to the department's or county department's right of recovery under this section, section 5160.38 of the Revised Code, or former section 5101.58 or 5101.59 of the Revised Code may request a hearing to rebut the presumption in division (G) of this section. The request shall be made not later than one hundred eighty days after the effective date of this amendment in accordance with the procedure the department establishes for this purpose in rules required by division (O) of this section. The presumption is successfully rebutted if the requestor demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that a different allocation is warranted.

(4) With respect to a hearing requested under division (L)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, all of the following are the case:

(a) The hearing examiner may consider, but is not bound by the allocation of, medical expenses specified in a settlement agreement between the medical assistance recipient and the relevant third party;

(b) The department or county department may raise affirmative defenses during the hearing, including the existence of a prior settlement with the medical assistance recipient, the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, or the common law principle of res judicata;

(c) If the parties agree, live testimony shall not be presented at the hearing;

(d) The hearing may be governed by rules adopted under section 5160.02 of the Revised Code. If such rules are adopted, Chapter 119. of the Revised Code applies to the hearing only to the extent specified in those rules;

(e) The hearing examiner's decision is binding on the department or county department and the medical assistance recipient unless the decision is reversed or modified on appeal to the medicaid director as described in division (M) of this section;

(f) A request for a hearing may be submitted by any of the following:

(i) The medical assistance recipient;

(ii) The medical assistance recipient's authorized representative;

(iii) The executor or administrator of a medical assistance recipient's estate authorized to make or pursue a request;

(iv) A court-appointed guardian;

(v) An attorney who has been directly retained by the medical assistance recipient, or the recipient's parent, legal guardian, or court-appointed guardian.

(M)(1) A medical assistance recipient who disagrees with a hearing examiner's decision under division (L) of this section may file an administrative appeal with the medicaid director in accordance with the procedure the department establishes for this purpose in rules required by division (O) of this section. A hearing is not required during the administrative appeal, but the director or the director's designee shall review the hearing examiner's decision and any prior relevant administrative action. After the review, the director or the director's designee shall affirm, modify, remand, or reverse the hearing decision. A decision made under this division is final and binding on the department or county department and the medical assistance recipient unless it is reversed or modified on appeal to a court of common pleas as described in division (N) of this section.

(2) An administrative appeal may be governed by rules adopted under section 5160.02 of the Revised Code. If such rules are adopted, Chapter 119. of the Revised Code applies to an administrative appeal only to the extent specified in those rules.

(N) A party to an administrative appeal described in division (M) of this section may file an appeal with a court of common pleas in accordance with section 119.12 of the Revised Code.

(O) The medicaid director shall adopt rules under section 5160.02 of the Revised Code as necessary to implement this section, including rules establishing procedures a party may use to request a hearing under division (L)(1), (2), or (3) of this section or an administrative appeal under division (M)(1) of this section. The rules shall be adopted in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code.

(P) Divisions (L) to (N) of this section are remedial in nature and shall be liberally construed by the courts of this state in accordance with section 1.11 of the Revised Code. Those divisions specify the sole remedy available to a party who claims the department or a county department has received or is to receive more money than entitled to receive under this section, section 5160.38 of the Revised Code, or former section 5101.58 or 5101.59 of the Revised Code.

Last updated August 13, 2025 at 9:09 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 48× “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Melnyk v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2019 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 15× “On April 22, 2016, ODM acknowledged receipt of appellant's request for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. {¶ 8} On March 21, 2017, appellant waived an in-person hearing and filed a brief in support of reallocation of settlement amounts.”
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 26× “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. Verlinger (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 1481 (Ohio 2018). “As Foremost notes, the General Assembly chose in R.C. 5160.37(F), governing recovery rights of the Department of Medicaid, to limit third-party liability for a subrogee's recovery when the third party is unaware of any subrogation rights.”
Binder v. Cuyahoga Cty. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5126 (Ohio 2020). “at ¶ 23, quoting R.C. 5160.37(P). See also State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 60× “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
Snay v. Burr, 2020 Ohio 3828 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The State of Ohio Department of Medicaid answered asserting rights under R.C. 5160.37 and counterclaimed against appellees.”
Mendoza v. Seger, 2019 Ohio 4284 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 5} On January 7, 2019, the Ohio Department of Medicaid filed its answer, asserting a right of recovery for the cost of medical services and care provided to Mendoza as provided by R.C. 5160.37. This pleading, likewise, contained no reference to any prior action.”
Yoby v. Cleveland, 2025 Ohio 5853 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the administrative- review process contained in R.C. 5160.37, a renumbered and revised version of former R.”
Pivonka v. Partika, 2026 Ohio 557 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 13× “37(L)(3), an amendment to R.C. 5160.37 that went into effect on September 30, 2025, potentially divests the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.”
Green v. Luxe Laser Ctr., 2025 Ohio 682 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “” {¶ 7} Defendant Medicaid answered the original complaint asserting its automatic right of recovery under R.C. 5160.37, and asserted a recovery crossclaim against all defendants.”
DiCarlo v. Fairview Hosp., 2022 Ohio 75 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “In its cross-claim, the Ohio Department of Medicaid asserted that it was entitled to recover from defendants the expenses for medical services and care pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. Defendants filed an answer to appellant’s complaint and the Department of Medicaid’s cross-claim on…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(A) — 2 cases
Weiss v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2023).
Ackerman v. OhioHealth Mansfield Hosp. (N.D. Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(F) — 1 case
Bur. of Workers' Comp. v. Verlinger (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 1481 (Ohio 2018). “As Foremost notes, the General Assembly chose in R.C. 5160.37(F), governing recovery rights of the Department of Medicaid, to limit third-party liability for a subrogee's recovery when the third party is unaware of any subrogation rights.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(G) — 1 case
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(G)(1) — 1 case
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(G)(2) — 2 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Melnyk v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2019 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On April 22, 2016, ODM acknowledged receipt of appellant's request for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. {¶ 8} On March 21, 2017, appellant waived an in-person hearing and filed a brief in support of reallocation of settlement amounts.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(L) — 3 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(L)(1) — 3 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(L)(2) — 3 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Melnyk v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2019 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On April 22, 2016, ODM acknowledged receipt of appellant's request for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. {¶ 8} On March 21, 2017, appellant waived an in-person hearing and filed a brief in support of reallocation of settlement amounts.”
Pivonka v. Partika, 2026 Ohio 557 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “37(L)(3), an amendment to R.C. 5160.37 that went into effect on September 30, 2025, potentially divests the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(L)(3) — 3 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Pivonka v. Partika, 2026 Ohio 557 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “37(L)(3), an amendment to R.C. 5160.37 that went into effect on September 30, 2025, potentially divests the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction in this case.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(L)(3)(b) — 1 case
Melnyk v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2019 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On April 22, 2016, ODM acknowledged receipt of appellant's request for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. {¶ 8} On March 21, 2017, appellant waived an in-person hearing and filed a brief in support of reallocation of settlement amounts.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(M) — 2 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(M)(1) — 2 cases
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(N) — 4 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
In re F.M. v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2023 Ohio 4522 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court granted the motion, finding it “lacked jurisdiction over the case because the administrative procedure in R.C. 5160.37 controlled and was the exclusive remedy.”
Melnyk v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2019 Ohio 5134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “On April 22, 2016, ODM acknowledged receipt of appellant's request for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 5160.37. {¶ 8} On March 21, 2017, appellant waived an in-person hearing and filed a brief in support of reallocation of settlement amounts.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 5160.37(P) — 3 cases
Pivonka v. Corcoran (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3476 (Ohio 2020). “] Class action—Subject-matter jurisdiction—Medicaid—R.C. 5160.37 established sole remedy for named plaintiffs and unnamed class members who reimbursed Ohio Department of Medicaid on or after September 29, 2007, pursuant to department’s right of recovery under former R.”
Binder v. Cuyahoga Cty. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5126 (Ohio 2020). “at ¶ 23, quoting R.C. 5160.37(P). See also State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v.”
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2026 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “{¶ 4} Appellants appealed from the decision of the Clark County Probate Court, and the reviewing court addressed the issue “whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the Masters were required to pursue the administrative process in R.C.…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.