Page 137

Page 6 of 11 § 10:71-4.4 Excludable resources Social services board erred in denying an application for Medicaid due to excess resources allegedly possessed by the applicant because the fund at issue was a retroactive payment of Social Security disability benefits. Using the methodologies and requirements for SSI as required, and per 20 C.F.R. § 416.1233(a), such funds should have been excluded from the applicant's resources for a period of nine months. Once those funds were removed from the calculation, the applicant did not possess "excess resources" supporting the denial of the application. T.S. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05476-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 363, Initial Decision (June 2, 2017). DMAHS director reversed an ALJ's Initial Decision finding that an applicant was eligible for the Medicaid Only program. While the ALJ concluded that the applicant's resources exceeded the resource limit by pennies and was subject to rounding down, the director found that the applicant had had resources in her bank account and in her Personal Needs Account exceeding the $ 2000 limit during all but one of the months considered. Also, there was no statutory or regulatory leeway to grant such benefits to applicants whose resources exceeded the stated limit. E.R. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17658-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1111, Final Agency Determination (May 10, 2017). Transfer penalty of 93 days imposed on the eligibility of a 92-year old Medicaid applicant in connection with his transfer of a "life estate" for inadequate value was rejected by an ALJ, who determined that the value of the "life estate" was minimal at most. As no proof was presented to show that it was substantially less than $ 1,000, that amount was accepted as the value of the estate and a transfer penalty of three days was properly imposed. Moreover, the facts were such that the applicant might properly seek an undue hardship waiver. S.P. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 911-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1103, Initial Decision (November 22, 2016). Medicaid applicant did not have to report, as income for the purposes of resource measurement, the proceeds of a check representing the result of the settlement of a casualty insurance claim on a vehicle because one car was completely excludable from resources per governing regulations and the check representing compensation for the car was similarly excludable. A.M. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09332-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 673, Initial Decision (August 8, 2016). Though an applicant who was seeking an award of Medicaid benefits provided a letter from her bank containing certain needed information, the letter did not address the balance in the account on the first of the month, which was the critical date under applicable regulations, and that failure provided grounds for a denial. A.A-G. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00912-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 174, Initial Decision (April 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). Sufficient evidence supported the determination of a county board of social services that the funds in a bank account in the names of the applicant and her daughter were a resource of the applicant and were properly counted in determining the applicant's resources for the purposes of qualifying for participation in the Medicaid Only Program. Since those funds well exceeded the ceiling for eligibility, the applicant was properly found to be ineligible. M.H. v. Mercer Cnty., Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16444-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 142, Initial Decision (March 17, 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