Page 112

Page 5 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources Public Guardian finally was appointed to oversee the patient's person and property, the resource was quickly spent down. I.L. v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF HUMAN SERVS., 389 N.J. Super. 354, 913 A.2d 122, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 347 (2006). New Jersey regulations define a "resource" as any real or personal property, which is owned and which could be converted to cash under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(b); therefore, in order to be considered in the determination of eligibility, a resource must be available, and such a resource is considered available to an individual when the person has the right, authority, or power to liquidate real or personal property, or his or her share of it. Estate of F.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 374 N.J. Super. 126, 863 A.2d 1065, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 7 (2005). County Board of Social Services acted properly when it concluded that an applicant for Medicaid was ineligible for benefits prior to March 1, 2023, which was the first date on which a Qualified Income Trust that had been established for his benefit was properly funded. The QIT, established in January 2022, indicated that the applicant was going to be depositing the entire proceeds of his pension and his SSI on a monthly basis, but the first month for which both amounts in fact were deposited was March 2023. That is, the applicant did not comply with the terms of the QIT until March 1, 2023 so that was the earliest date for which his income eligibility was properly established. J.M. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06891-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 198, Initial Decision (February 28, 2024). Although a county board of social services acted properly in determining that a Medicaid recipient had to repay benefits received during a period when she was the co-owner of an undisclosed bank account which held funds that were sufficient to bring her resources to over $ 4000, the matter of repayment was separate from the determination of whether her ongoing eligibility was properly terminated, and this latter matter should not have been decided below but was properly reserved for a separate fair hearing. That being so, DMAHS reversed the determination of ineligibility made below. M.L. v. Bergen Cnty., Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06076-20, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 45, Final Agency Determination (February 23, 2021). Determination by a county board of social services that a Medicaid recipient's resources had exceeded the maximum permitted during a three-month period of September, October and November 2019 was approved by DMAHS but the matter was remanded to determine whether the recipient's wife was also a Medicaid recipient, which data was necessary to determine whether the recipient had been ineligible for benefits during August 2019. A.T. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09239-20, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 56, Order of Remand (February 23, 2021). DMAHS sustained an ALJ's Initial Decision finding that a 133-day penalty was properly imposed upon an applicant's Medicaid eligibility by reason of the sale of her residence within the exclusion period for less than its FMV of $ 174,127.78. It was clearly established that the applicant was contemplating applying for Medicaid when she sought to sell the residence to her daughter because the applicant was living in a nursing home and had already applied for Medicaid. The evidence also showed that the applicant's daughter had told the real estate agent that the reason that the residence was being sold was related to the applicant's Medicaid eligibility and that the residence in fact was never listed for sale. D.L. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10534-2019, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1083, Final Agency Determination (December 22, 2019). New Jersey regulations that govern resource eligibility in the Medicaid program set out a clear eligibility procedure and there is no provision that permits a relaxation of the eligibility date so long as an applicant's countable resources exceed the maximum limit. D.R. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09889-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 956, Final Agency Determination (October 25, 2018). Because a Medicaid applicant did not have access to her assets during the three-month period that began on the date of her son's removal from the position of guardian and ended on the date on which a successor guardian received her commission, those assets were not "countable resources" during the interim period and could not be included as a resource on any date during that period. M.L. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13804-17, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 800, Final Agency Determination (July 27, 2018).