Page 115

Page 8 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources Failure and/or refusal of the husband of an incapacitated wife who was receiving long-term nursing home services to provide disclosure of his resources as needed for a redetermination of the wife's eligibility did not provide grounds for an order either extending the time for compliance or granting a "spousal waiver." Counsel to the nursing home, which had initiated the redetermination process in January 2016 on behalf of the wife, did not take any steps to include the recalcitrant husband in a motion for an order to show cause compelling the wife's son, who was her guardian, to cooperate in the redetermination process. Nor was a "spousal waiver" appropriate on these facts. K.Z. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16945-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 219, Initial Decision (April 5, 2017). Medicaid applicant won ruling that he was entitled to benefits retroactive to the date of his application for same. Benefits had been denied because the county social services board erroneously believed that the applicant was required to place his Social Security benefits in the QIT into which his pension benefits were deposited. Because the issue relative to the Social Security benefits was the only bar to eligibility, benefits should have been awarded retroactive to the date of the application. K.B. v. Middlesex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09839- 16; OAL DKT NO. HMA 17985-16 (Consolidated), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 75, Initial Decision (February 3, 2017). Agency did not err in denying a Medicaid application because applicant neither supplied the requested information about resources nor requested that the agency assist her in obtaining missing documentation. E.F. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09216-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 72, Initial Decision (February 3, 2017). Agency's denial of a Medicaid application based on the applicant's failure to provide requested information was reversed because the applicant had made many attempts to obtain them. The agency, though required to assist the applicant, in fact had made no effort to assist by utilizing either AVS or PARIS and thus could not properly deny the application based on missing information. Moreover, the resulting delay was beyond the applicant's control and could not be used as a basis for denial. C.F.J. v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06589-16 (Remand of HMA 04859-14), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50, Initial Decision (January 31, 2017). Medicaid applicant won retroactive eligibility date because the social services agency responsible for acting on his application failed to timely move the case through the approval process, failed to give the applicant required notifications, failed to assist the applicant and failed to independently verify the value of resources. The overall failure on the part of the agency justified a retroactive date. W.M. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11651-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 27, Initial Decision (January 18, 2017). The intent of N.J.S.A. 10:71-4.1(e)2 was that the act of drafting a check signifies a commitment of funds, thereby reducing the value of an account owned by a Medicaid applicant so as to reflect its actual balance as of the first moment of the first day of the month. In that case, the applicant is required to provide full documentation to support the balance indicated in the account register. N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1 cannot be reasonably interpreted to empower a social services board to follow the money trail throughout the relevant month in order to determine the end game of the check drawn, and then to use that information to ascertain the "actual balance" as of the first moment of the first day of the month. That being so, where a Medicaid applicant purchased an annuity to pay for his long-term care, the penalty period imposed by reason of the existence of excess resources (being the funds used to buy the annuity) began to run on the date on which resource eligibility was determined. H.M. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10869-14, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1246, Final Administrative Determination (December 16, 2016). After remand to allow for additional evidence to be submitted relative to the kinds of tasks undertaken by the son of a Medicaid recipient for whom a "caretaker exemption" was sought, an ALJ found that the son and his wife administered the daily medications needed by applicant, a diabetic, and tested her blood glucose levels several times a day; assisted her with ADLs including toileting; bathing; dressing; meal preparation; transportation to and from doctor appointments; shopping; and house cleaning; and that but for the performance of these tasks by the son and his wife, the applicant would have required institutional care from at least 2010 forward. L.K. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15127-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 997, Order on Remand (December 2, 2016).