Page 145

Page 3 of 11 § 10:71-4.5 Resource eligibility standards disability income the institutionalized spouse was reasonably expected to earn thereafter. N.E. v. New Jersey Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 399 N.J. Super. 566, 945 A.2d 109, 2008 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78 (App.Div. 2008). Decision of the Director of Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), which upheld the imposition of a Medicaid transfer penalty based on an unequal equitable distribution to a non-institutionalized spouse of a Medicaid applicant in a bed and board divorce action, was reversed. There existed no regulation that authorized such a decision and the DMAHS's in-house rule imposing such a penalty for a transfer of assets as equitable distribution of more than 50 percent to the non-institutionalized spouse was contrary to both New Jersey public policy and the law of equitable distribution. W.T. v. DIVISION OF MED. ASSISTANCE & HEALTH SERVS., 391 N.J. Super. 25, 916 A.2d 1066, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 59 (2007). Nursing home patient was eligible for Medicaid Only benefits because the patient's medical condition rendered those assets not accessible under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.4(b)6, thereby the cash value of certain life insurance policies were excluded from the patient's countable resources. Since the patient was incapacitated due to dementia and Alzheimer's, the patient did not have access to the cash value of the life insurance policies and, ultimately, when a Public Guardian finally was appointed to oversee the patient's person and property, the resource was quickly spent down. I.L. v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF HUMAN SERVS., 389 N.J. Super. 354, 913 A.2d 122, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 347 (2006). Transfer penalty of 646 days was properly applied to the Medicaid qualification of an applicant based on the applicant's conduct in gifting, to her grandson, the net proceeds received by her as a result of the sale of her personal residence. The agency had to utilize the value of the home as assessed by the city to establish FMV because no other information or documentation bearing on the proper valuation of the home was provided by the applicant or her representative. I.B. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05905-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 192, Initial Decision (February 23, 2024). ALJ concluded that the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services acted properly in imposing a 237-day penalty period on account of a transfer of $ 91,460 belonging to the applicant despite the fact that the applicant claimed that she had been defrauded of this amount in a scam orchestrated by unidentified persons. While a good faith effort was made to rebut the presumption that such funds were transferred for FMV, no witnesses were called, either from the police department or from the facility where the applicant resided, to explain and discuss suspicions surrounding the questionable transactions. While the applicant would not be required to show an indictment or similar documentation, the ALJ concluded that the lack of any live testimony relative to the fraud claim meant that the applicant had not met her burden on this issue. C.T. v. Morris Cnty. Dep't of Human Serv./Office of Temp. Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04165-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 188, Initial Decision (February 21, 2024). The $ 2,000 limit on resources of an applicant for Medicaid is a bright line test as of the first moment of the first day of the month, with the only exception being checks that were drawn but not cleared as of the first moment of the first day of the month. R.B., v. DMAHS, et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 7358-2020, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 44, Final Agency Determination (February 23, 2021). Determination by a county board of social services that a Medicaid recipient's resources had exceeded the maximum permitted during a three-month period of September, October and November 2019 was approved by DMAHS but the matter was remanded to determine whether the recipient's wife was also a Medicaid recipient, which data was necessary to determine whether the recipient had been ineligible for benefits during August 2019. A.T. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09239-20, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 56, Order of Remand (February 23, 2021). New Jersey regulations that govern resource eligibility in the Medicaid program set out a clear eligibility procedure and there is no provision that permits a relaxation of the eligibility date so long as an applicant's countable resources exceed the maximum limit. D.R. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09889-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 956, Final Agency Determination (October 25, 2018).