Page 114

Page 7 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources adjusted upward to account for the additional benefit resulting from the presence, on the property, of a billboard that was subject to a 30-year lease. M.T. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02698-17 (ON REMAND HMA 13332- 16), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 557, Initial Decision (July 18, 2017). Director of DMAHS rejected the argument of a Medicaid applicant that transferred assets on which an eligibility penalty was imposed were incorrectly valued on findings that, for Medicaid purposes and absent a certified appraisal, the equity value of real property was the tax-assessed value of the property multiplied by the reciprocal of the assessment ratio as recorded in the most recently issued State Table of Equalized Valuations, less encumbrances, if any. However, a correction was necessary because the ratio of assessed value to true value was 105.82% not 107.68%, which affected the value of the transfer at issue. R.S. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1885-2016 and OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1031-2017 (Consolidated), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1340, Final Agency Determination (June 30, 2017). Social services board erred in denying an application for Medicaid due to excess resources allegedly possessed by the applicant because the fund at issue was a retroactive payment of Social Security disability benefits. Using the methodologies and requirements for SSI as required, and per 20 C.F.R. § 416.1233(a), such funds should have been excluded from the applicant's resources for a period of nine months. Once those funds were removed from the calculation, the applicant did not possess "excess resources" supporting the denial of the application. T.S. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05476-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 363, Initial Decision (June 2, 2017). DMAHS director reversed an ALJ's Initial Decision finding that an applicant was eligible for the Medicaid Only program. While the ALJ concluded that the applicant's resources exceeded the resource limit by pennies and was subject to rounding down, the director found that the applicant had had resources in her bank account and in her Personal Needs Account exceeding the $ 2000 limit during all but one of the months considered. Also, there was no statutory or regulatory leeway to grant such benefits to applicants whose resources exceeded the stated limit. E.R. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17658-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1111, Final Agency Determination (May 10, 2017). Medicaid applicant who signed a contract agreeing to pay all expenses of residing in a nursing home for a guaranteed two year period was not entitled to have the asset transfer-related penalty period run while she was in private pay status. Her claim of financial eligibility was a sham designed to have a Medicaid bed waiting for her when her assets ran out. Further, the facility would not accept payments from Medicaid until the applicant had been a resident of the facility for two years. Because the application for Medicaid benefits was premature, the county social services board acted properly in denying it. B.K. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs. et al, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 18569-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 224, Initial Decision (April 24, 2017). Social services board should not have imposed a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant who also was the parent of a disabled child who was the beneficiary of a special needs trust which was to be funded with the proceeds from the sale of the applicant's house. To the extent that the transfer benefited the special needs trust, by definition it was not a transfer for less than FMV within the meaning of governing regulations. Moreover, given the deplorable condition of the property, its equalized value of $ 146,000 should not have been considered equivalent to its FMV, which was shown to be $ 72,000, and the sale of the property for $ 71,000 was not for "less than FMV." D.H. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 18715-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 164, Initial Decision (March 16, 2017). Penalty was properly imposed on petitioner's Medicaid eligibility on account of $ 626,704 in transfers from an account that contained funds that had been contributed to the account by the petitioner and his deceased wife. Even though the names of his son and daughter-in-law had been added to the account, the presence of their names on the account did not entitle them to the funds and while the son claimed that a substantial number of the transfers were made to him on account of rent for periods during which the petitioner had lived in his home, there was no documentary evidence supporting the rent claim. T.E.B. v. Salem Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12646-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 131, Initial Decision (March 1, 2017).