Special Needs Trusts to shelter their monthly Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) income from certain Medicaid eligibility determinations. Wong asserts that the district dourt erred in accepting defendants’ reliance on SMM 3259.7 in calculating his benefits because the rule conflicts with the express language of 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d), the provision of the Medicaid Act that sets forth Medicaid eligibility rules for trusts created with an individual’s assets. We reject Wong’s reading of § 1396p(d) and instead conclude that Congress did not speak to the question presented by Wong’s claim. We apply Skidmore deference to SMM 3259.7, which was issued by the agency to fill the gap left by Congress. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that SMM 3259.7 is an appropriate
holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations holding that courts should not question the validity of particular litigants interpretations of their creeds holding that an agencys rulings interpretations and opinions of an act administered by the agency while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency recognizing that we give considerable weight to an agencys interpretations and applications of statutory or regulatory provisions that are administered by the agency