Page 20

Page 4 of 5 § 10:70-2.1 Application Community spouse (applicant) who represented to a county temporary support office that the applicant's son was paying the applicant's housing expenses was not entitled to any relief from his payment obligations. Though the applicant originally advised the agency that his son was paying his expenses, presumably as a gift, after consulting a different elder law attorney, the applicant asserted that the son was "lending" the funds to the applicant. On these facts, which included the applicant's submission of a promissory note that appeared to have been backdated, the applicant was not entitled to relief on his claim that the funds were a loan or that the agency should have counseled the applicant from the outset that characterizing the son's funds as a "loan" would be financially advantageous. E.B. v. Morris Cnty. Office of Temporary Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14388-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 94, Initial Decision (February 10, 2017). Medicaid recipient's benefits were properly terminated on findings that he did not demonstrate, as required, that he in fact was not the owner of an LLC in whose name a utility bill was received because the recipient had the responsibility to complete any forms required as part of the application process but had failed to do so. A.F. v. Middlesex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09620-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 824, Initial Decision (October 3, 2016). Medicaid recipient was denied relief from a county board's termination of her benefits on the ground that her income now exceeded the statutory limit. The recipient now was receiving VA benefits, survivor Social Security Act (SSA) benefits and SSA disability benefits, and her gross monthly income of $ 2,293.19 exceeded the applicable ceiling on income, which was $ 990. D.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11139-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 749, Initial Decision (August 29, 2016). Widow was properly denied relief on her challenge to the effective date of Medicaid eligibility for her now- deceased husband. The agency representative fulfilled his duty to notify the couple of the status of the application and of the steps that the couple had to take in order to complete the process. Once all of the needed information was provided, the agency acted reasonably in determining countable resources and spend-down requirements. Moreover, even if the agency should have notified the couple about the status, the fact was that the couple had excess resources until November 2012, thereby authorizing an eligibility date of December 2012. E.C. v. DMAHS and Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00149-13, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 451, Initial Decision (June 9, 2016). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that a penalty of two months and 12 days was properly imposed on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid was correct because applicant had transferred $ 24,034 for less than fair value during the five year look back period. Those funds were principally spent on wedding reception expenses for a granddaughter, pharmacy school tuition and graduation gifts for a granddaughter, and some traditional gifting to family members for Christmas, birthdays and similar events. Though the applicant insisted that these expenditures were consistent with her past practices and were not properly included in an eligibility penalty, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reasoned that once applicant's health took a turn for the worse and she required institutionalization, it no longer remained credible that applicant did not anticipate seeking public assistance at some point in the future. It was untenable for her to argue that she did not in part know that spending monies on her granddaughter's education or wedding or for family gifts that would in earlier times have been perfectly normal meant that she would not have funds to pay for her medical care and might thus qualify for public assistance. D.B. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00529-15, AGENCY REF. NO.W-13781 (Slip Opinion), Initial Decision (May 18, 2015). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that a 42-day transfer penalty was properly imposed on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid was incorrect because the preponderance of the credible evidence showed that the applicant's daughter, who was generally responsible for her care, made some of the challenged transfers for a reason other than to qualify for Medicaid eligibility. Because the daughter convincingly rebutted the presumption that the transfers were made to establish Medicaid eligibility, the transfers on which a penalty was properly imposed totaled $ 12,437.33. B.J.H. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13823-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 208, Initial Decision (February 13, 2015).