Page 123

Page 16 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources are excluded per N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.4(b)6. Thus, though the cash value was "available" to the disabled adult in the sense that she had the right to liquidate the policy, the circumstances presented by these facts, which included that the adult has Down's Syndrome and had been declared incompetent by reason thereof, the adult lacked the capacity to deal with the insurance, and its value should not have been considered when evaluating the adult's resources. Once the value thereof was excluded, the adult was eligible for Medicaid as of the proposed date of September 1, 2013. P.M. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA18597-13, AGENCY REF. NO. 9020032129-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 291, Initial Decision (May 12, 2014). Burlington County Board of Social Services' termination of Medicaid eligibility was affirmed when the resources of the recipient exceeded the amount permitted under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1. He owned two life insurance policies but failed to disclose them, and there was no legal precedent to waive this requirement when a recipient either did not know or failed to do proper diligence in the discovery or reporting of such resources. His argument of a transfer to a disabled child failed because the child was not disabled at the time of the application and the transfer was not made properly. S.B. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 16743-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 286, Initial Decision (May 22, 2014). Action of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and the Camden County Board of Social Services denying an application for Nursing Home Medicaid was reversed. An irrevocable trust was created before the sixty month Medicaid long back period began. The checks written to the nursing home from the trust during the look back period were made payable to the nursing home, obviously for the applicant's care and for her benefit. The remaining checks written during the look back period appeared to be for the maintenance of the property that was contained in the trust and for taxes. These payments were for the benefit of the applicant with the exception of one check written payable to cash, which was considered not to be for her benefit under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(e)1iii. Thus, the applicant's resources were under $ 2,000 pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5(c). J.S. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. Social Serv. and Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 11618-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 280, Initial Decision (May 20, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that neither an elderly woman nor her guardian received a November 7, 2012 letter from the county agency denying her Medicaid application and that the elderly woman thus was entitled to be granted Medicaid eligibility effective February 1, 2013. The denial was predicated on the fact that the agency had not received the woman's Social Security and Medicare cards nor information that had been requested relative to the value of assets including life insurance policies and the woman's residence. However, despite the fact that the guardian continued to respond to those and other requests on the part of the agency, the agency received that information without ever advising the guardian that the application had already been denied. Moreover, if the agency, as required by N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(c)3(i)2, had deducted from the woman's countable assets the amounts awarded by a court to the guardian on account of fees, the eligibility requirements would have been met no later than the requested February 1, 2013 date. M.S. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs. & Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 8060-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. 0310030326, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 174, Initial Decision, April 10, 2014. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Bergen County Board of Social Services erred when, relying on N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.5(b)3, it denied a Medicaid application filed by an elderly husband (Husband) and imposed a transfer penalty of 17 months and 20 days, making Husband's eligibility date September 21, 2014, based on its finding that the assets represented by three certificate of deposit (CDs) accounts titled to his wife (Wife) and Wife's sister (Sister) constituted resources within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.6 that were "available" to Husband within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(c) and could be converted to cash and used for the Husband's support and maintenance. Wife and Sister's submission on that issue, which included a statement from the financial institution where the accounts were held, established that the funds used to obtain the CDs were owned in toto by Sister, who was elderly, had no children, and lived alone; and that Sister's intention, in titling the accounts as she did, was to assure that Wife would have access to the funds in the event that Sister became incapacitated or to pay for her funeral expenses. Because the submission met the standards in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10( o)3 and established that the funds were not a resource of Husband, the ALJ concluded that there was no basis for the imposition of a