Page 121

Page 14 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources been legitimate payments for the applicant's care. M.M. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9251-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 155, Initial Decision (March 9, 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). Medicaid applicant failed to rebut the presumption that a substantial portion of the assets that she transferred during the "look-back" period were transferred for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid. Moreover, the applicant continued to transfer large sums of money to her children and grandchildren as her health slowly deteriorated and as she could anticipate the need for long-term care services. Thus, she was entitled to a small reduction in the penalty period based on her showing that about $ 10,000 of those funds was spent on her own living expenses and care needs. However, she was not entitled to any reduction in the penalty period due to partial returns of improperly-transferred assets because the transfer penalty may only be adjusted if all assets transferred for less than FMV have been returned. Finally, the record supports a conclusion that the Board of Social Services had incorrectly calculated the penalty in the first place because it did not use the then-current year's divisor in the calculation, an error that should be corrected on recalculation of the penalty to be based on $ 130,028.64. M.D. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 345-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 824, Initial Decision (December 15, 2014). Medicaid applicant had "access" to funds in her checking account within the meaning of governing regulations given the absence of any showing of any external factor that prevented the applicant from accessing them. D.W. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 15245-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 915, Final Administrative Determination (September 2, 2014). Administrative law judge reversed a determination of the Atlantic County Board of Social Services, Medicaid Unit (CWA), denying a Medicaid application based on excess resources under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5(c). Pursuant to provisions of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1 et seq., the applicant, a person that was adjudicated as incapacitated by the Superior Court on May 10, 2013, did not have access to probate assets (bank account) held by the (intestate) estate of his deceased wife. Nor did the Public Guardian have access to the assets of the estate of the deceased wife at this time. If and when the assets of the estate of deceased wife were subject to probate, the Public Guardian was ordered to inform the CWA and resource eligibly might be re-evaluated, subject to the priorities established by the probate laws. E.C. v. Atlantic County Bd. of Social Serv. and Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv., 3 OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9751-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 542, Initial Decision (October 24, 2014). Administrative law judge affirmed the termination of a recipient's Medicaid case by the Bergen County Board of Social Services and its attempt to recover Medicaid benefits expended on his behalf because he failed to disclose all resources as defined by N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(b) on his Medicaid application and subsequent redetermination applications. Irrespective of the recipient's state of mind at the time of the initial application or subsequent redeterminations, it was undisputed that he was the owner of a TD Ameritrade account, the value of which at all relevant times exceeded the resource eligibility limit of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5(c). J.V. v. Bergen County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09843-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 717, Initial Decision (October 15, 2014). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) denying a petitioner's request for Medically Needy Nursing Home Medicaid per N.J.A.C. 10:70-1.1 et seq. was reversed. That determination had been based on a CBSS calculation of amounts held in four bank accounts, two of which were in the name of a business that the applicant had owned. However, the applicant established that the business had stopped operations, would not be reopening for the next school year, had no employees, owed amounts to former employees, to a landlord and to some trade vendors. That being so, a recalculation of the applicant's resources in accord with N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.1(b)