Page 128

Page 3 of 5 § 10:71-4.2 Countable resources 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). Disabled recipient who was denied continued eligibility for in-community personal care under the Medicaid waiver program won reversal of denial because the agency made one attempt to obtain information on a term insurance policy that was no longer in effect. Even though it was then established that the policy was a term policy with no cash or surrender value that had lapsed years earlier, the agency ungenerously had refused to waive a few week delay on the submission. A.F. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11409-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 825, Initial Decision (October 3, 2016). Two month penalty was properly imposed on an applicant's Medicaid eligibility on account of her having transferred her two-thirds interest in certain real estate for less than market value within the look-back period. Though other family members testified to their sincerely-held belief that the applicant did not own such an interest in the transferred property, such testimony was insufficient to overcome documentary evidence demonstrating otherwise. Moreover, even if the property had been placed in trust for the applicant, that would not change the result because the applicant had already transferred her interest for less than market value. L.S. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15032-14, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 535, Initial Decision (June 27, 2016). Agency rejected an ALJ's recommendation that a Medicaid denial be reversed and sustained the initial agency ruling on findings that the applicant's son, who was acting for his mother, failed to provide the agency with adequate information in the first instance explaining the disposition of the applicant's assets, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars that had been drained from the applicant's accounts. Given the inadequacy of the information provided to the agency, the applicant was per se ineligible for benefits. A.F. v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02986-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 603, Final Decision (May 11, 2016). Though the income of an applicant for Medicaid fluctuated seasonally, his income in the month in which he and his wife sought recertification of eligibility exceeded the ceiling and afforded good grounds to deny the application. J.M. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17572-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 143, Initial Decision (March 21, 2016). Determination of a county board of social services that an elderly woman's countable resources exceeded the eligibility resource limit, though originally sustained by an ALJ, was approved after remand and further proceedings on findings that the woman's access to an account that held $ 5,658 at the time of the application was unrestricted. Though the parties had stipulated that the account at issue was jointly held by the woman and her daughter, the ALJ noted that the woman did not submit any documentation proving that her access to those funds in fact was restricted and that there was evidence suggesting that each account owner could act independently with regard to transactions therein. F.J. v. Camden Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9451-15 (On Remand HMA 15125- 14), 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 119, Decision on Remand (March 14, 2016). Applicant for Medicaid was not entitled to a retroactive date of eligibility based on the date of application because a delay on the part of the board of social services in acting on the application was due to the failure on the part of the applicant's wife to submit required documentation. The mere fact that the board did not complete the processing within the 45-day period described in governing regulations did not provide a basis for retroactivity. H.F. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00044-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 62, Initial Decision (February 16, 2016). Board of social services erred when it denied Medicaid benefits to an applicant who had suffered from dementia for several years on the grounds that she had failed to provide the information and documents requested by the agency and because her "available" resources exceeded the maximum allowable under regulations. The evidence made it quite clear that the applicant did not and could not have participated in the liquidation of her personal and marital assets and that the assets at issue were neither "accessible" nor "countable" in relation to the applicant. A.F. v. Hudson Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02986-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 63, Initial Decision (February 12, 2016).