Page 138

Page 7 of 11 § 10:71-4.4 Excludable resources 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). Income stream that was available from a testamentary trust benefiting, inter alia, an applicant for Medicaid constituted a "resource" for the applicant that exceeded the resource ceiling in governing law and thus disqualified the applicant from qualifying for Medicaid. There was no merit to the applicant's claim that the trustee of the trust had validly determined to not invade the corpus of the trust for her nursing home care on the ground that it was not an "emergency" within the meaning of the trust because, in reality, the applicant herself had full discretion to approve or disapprove any proposed payment. S.V. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02069-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 78, Initial Decision (February 23, 2016). Third application for Medicaid eligibility filed by a representative of an elderly nursing home resident who was suffering from dementia was properly granted retroactive to a date that was three months prior to the date of filing in accord with governing law over claims that it should have been retroactive to the date on which the resident had been admitted to the nursing home because there was no causal relationship between the resident being admitted to the nursing home and his access to countable resources for establishing eligibility. E.M. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13935-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 49, Initial Decision (February 10, 2016). Where an elderly Medicaid applicant appointed his adult daughter as his power of attorney (POA) and the daughter thereafter failed and refused to account for nearly $ 30,000 of funds that were presumed to be the property of the applicant, the Office of the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults (OPG) had a legal and affirmative obligation to pursue an equitable action against the daughter because the funds taken by her would be imputed to the applicant under governing law given his appointment of her as his POA. Moreover, these funds were not an "inaccessible resource" that was subject to exclusion and in fact were properly included in the excess resource penalty calculation. R.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA03644-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 816, Initial Decision (December 30, 2015). County board of social services was right to conclude that the countable resources of a 78 year old widow included a checking account that contained more than $ 70,000 even though her son, who was a co-owner of the checking account, insisted that nearly $ 60,000 of those funds were the proceeds from the sale of his house in which his mother had no legal interest. The widow was not under any disability or guardianship and the manner in which the account was titled - as an "or" account - meant that the widow had unrestricted access to all of the funds contained therein. S.M. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04755-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 456, Initial Decision (November 20, 2015). ALJ rejected a determination of a county social services board finding that an applicant seeking Medicaid for nursing facility care was chargeable with annual income of $ 2,472.41 based on annual K-1 tax filings. Those filings related to a family trust granted under Texas law in 2004 into which the proceeds of the sale of the applicant's house were deposited. The trustee was not permitted to make distributions to the applicant but could make discretionary payments for her health and welfare. The evidence also showed that, in reality, the applicant did not receive any funds from the family trust nor have any power to compel such distributions. C.S. v. Cape May Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1648-15 (ON REMAND HMA 9473-14), 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 513, Decision on Remand (October 14, 2015). Now-deceased resident of a nursing home could not be said to have had "access" to funds generated by the sale of her home, which funds were stolen by her two daughters and could not be recovered notwithstanding the valiant efforts of her grandson, with whom she had resided and who was the executor of the resident's estate. Because those funds were not "available" to the resident to apply to the cost of her care, the eligibility penalty imposed on her Medicaid benefits was properly removed. This was true even though the resident (or the grandson) did not file suit against the daughter who resided in South Carolina because both lacked resources with which to pursue litigation in a different state. K.V. v. Cape May Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 2005- 14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 392, Initial Decision (July 29, 2015).