Page 124

Page 17 of 18 § 10:71-4.1 Financial eligibility standards; resources transfer penalty. W.Z. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 16767-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. 021016511201, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 99, Initial Decision (February 7, 2014). Petitioner should have been granted Medicaid Only Nursing Home benefits effective June 1, 2008, instead of October 1, 2008, because petitioner did not have resources of $ 50,000.00, an amount due him in accordance with the property settlement in a divorce action, where the attorney who held the $ 50,000.00 in his trust account was his wife's attorney, not his; additionally, all parties agreed that no payment was ever made directly to petitioner from this fund. C.S.J. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 12214-08, 2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 736, Final Decision (July 16, 2009). Initial Decision (2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 868) adopted, which found that the effective date of eligibility for a Medicaid program account began March 22, 2008, instead of on petitioner's requested date of October 22, 2007, because the petitioner had received $ 7,500.20 in June of 2007, and $ 38,000 in November of 2007, from a reverse mortgage loan; although the monies were ostensibly taken for home improvement repairs, the monies were placed, not in an escrow account or any kind of account with specific instructions limiting how the proceeds were to be spent, but were placed in petitioner's account and were under his direct dominion and control. As a result, petitioner was resource ineligible because those funds in his bank account were still available to him and well exceeded the $ 2,000 resource limitation. F.R. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 09322-08, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1112, Final Decision (October 29, 2008). Expert testimony demonstrated that an annuity could be converted to cash and thus was an available resource for purposes of a nursing facility resident's application for Medicaid benefits under the Medically Needy program; the annuity, purchased by the applicant, a widow, for $ 195,710, was to pay the applicant $ 1,740.85 per month for 10 years and stated on its face that it was non-assignable (adopting 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 209). D.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 6394-06, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 546, Final Decision (June 11, 2007). Initial Decision (2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 209) adopted, which concluded that an application for Medicaid benefits under the Medically Needy program was correctly denied for the applicant's failure to provide requested information regarding three attempts to sell the subject annuity, which the applicant claimed was an unavailable resource; while the Division may ultimately bear the burden of proving that a market exists, and that this particular annuity could be sold, this did not relieve the applicant of her obligation to produce information the Division requested. D.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 6394-06, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 546, Final Decision (June 11, 2007). Medicaid applicant's irrevocable trust arrangement was void because it violated New Jersey's public policy against shielding assets to become Medicaid eligible, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6(f), and therefore the trust res was considered an available resource. Because public policy considered the trust null and void, it was as if the trust assets were available to the applicant throughout the duration of the trust and at the time of the Medicaid application made on February 8, 2006; thus, the transfer of assets did not occur until February 8, 2006, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(m)1, and the penalty period for the transfer began on that date. J.S. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 4896-06, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1054, Initial Decision (December 19, 2006). Initial Decision (2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 456) adopted, which concluded that a special needs trust, of which petitioner was a beneficiary, was an excludable resource under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.4(b)6 for purposes of determining Medicaid Only eligibility because petitioner was not the grantor, the trust was not funded by any of petitioner's assets, a trustee other than petitioner had sole discretion to disburse trust funds, petitioner could not compel the distribution of the corpus or income, and petitioner was not the beneficiary of any remaining funds upon the trust's termination. A.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 8525-05, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 586, Final Decision (June 26, 2006). Custodial bank accounts of Medicaid applicant's children were not available to applicant or her husband and thus were not countable resources in determining applicant's eligibility for the Nursing Home Medicaid program for the year in question; the accounts, created years before applicant's entry into the nursing home, were governed by the