Page 60

Page 2 of 3 § 10:70-5.1 Resource eligibility limits Chapter Notes Case Notes Appeal by applicant for eligibility under Medicaid Nursing Home Program as of August 31, 2014 was properly dismissed because while the applicant showed clinical eligibility and the applicant's income satisfied either the budget unit or the medical spend down requirements in governing regulations, the applicant did not satisfy the resource limits until April 2015 and thus did not have eligibility until then. M.P. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02517-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 163, Final Administrative Determination (March 16, 2017). Widow was properly denied relief on her challenge to the effective date of Medicaid eligibility for her now- deceased husband. Once all needed information was provided, the agency reasonably determined countable resources and spend-down requirements. Inasmuch as the couple had excess resources until November 2012, a December 2012 eligibility date was appropriate. E.C. v. DMAHS and Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00149-13, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1138, Final Administrative Determination (July 18, 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). Son's failure to obtain and provide, to a county board of social services, true copies of agreements and related documents concerning a trust of which his father, an elderly man who was disabled due to Alzheimers, dementia and Parkinson's disease, was the sole trustee afforded grounds for a denial of Medicaid benefits. This was notwithstanding the fact that the son had demonstrated that the documents were not provided because the son simply could not obtain them from the bank where the trust was established. A.T., Petitioner, v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services and Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 20582-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 156, Initial Decision (March 28, 2016). Decision of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services to deny an applicant's eligibility for Medicaid was appropriate under N.J.A.C. 10:70-5.1. The income and corpus of a family trust was not specifically excludable for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility and must be treated as countable assets for the purpose of determining Medicaid eligibility under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(e)(2)(i). As such, the applicant's countable income exceeded the resource limit of $ 4,000 for the Medically Needy program. K.L. v. Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv. and Gloucester County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11454-2014, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 37, Initial Decision (January 13, 2015). Ocean County Board of Social Services and the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services improperly denied an applicant Medicaid benefits on the grounds that she was over-resourced pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:70- 5.1(a). The resource value of the asset in question, a restaurant, less the encumbrances against it resulted in a negative value. However, her transfer of assets for less than fair market value triggered a Medicaid-eligibility penalty period pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(c)4. The applicant essentially made a gift of the property at issue to her son by transferring it for one dollar consideration and then encumbering it with close to $ 3 million in liens to build a business that her son and his wife owned through their limited liability company (LLC). The transfer was a gift to her son for which his LLC was the sole beneficiary. The applicant did not meet her burden of rebutting the presumption that the purpose of this transfer was for reasons other than Medicaid planning. She presented no