Page 150

Page 8 of 11 § 10:71-4.5 Resource eligibility standards Parents of two profoundly disabled children won a waiver from a duty to repay Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of those two children, which reimbursement was sought because the father failed to report his ownership of a 401(k) plan. While the 401(k) plan account was not reported on certain forms, it was reflected on paystubs regularly submitted by the father to the county. It also was significant that the funds at issue were used to retrofit the family home with an elevator lift to accommodate one child's wheelchair, to modify the bathroom to improve access for the children, and to pay medical and other bills. The Commissioner of the Department of Human Services acted properly in waiving repayment on these facts. M.B. et al v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15436-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 428, Initial Decision (June 29, 2015). Applicant for Nursing Home Medicaid (NHM) was improperly denied eligibility on the ground that her resources of $ 6,725.44 from several bank accounts exceeded the $ 2,000 Medicaid eligibility limit. Specifically, an investment account holding $ 5,658.88 should not have been counted as a resource of the applicant notwithstanding that her name was listed as a joint tenant thereon because the applicant's daughter, who was the source of all deposits into that account, credibly testified that she had added her mother's name to the account at a time when she was residing with her mother; and that her mother was currently an "incapacitated" person and the daughter had been appointed as her mother's temporary guardian. The daughter's testimony was forthright, sincere and uncontroverted. Given that fact and given the further fact that the mother's incapacity foreclosed her from independently accessing the investment account, the funds held therein should not have been counted as the mother's resources for purposes of NHM eligibility. F.J. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15125-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 261, Initial Decision (April 30, 2015). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with DMAHS that an applicant for Medicaid was properly subjected to a ten month penalty on her benefits by reason of her transfer, during the look-back period, of $ 78,000. By the time of the hearing, the applicant was deceased, but her son, on behalf of the estate, claimed that the $ 78,000 reflected six gifts of $ 13,000 each that she had made to family members purportedly to pay for her granddaughter's wedding and her grandchildren's college expenses and that at the time such gifts were made, the applicant was living wholly independently and that Medicaid eligibility was not a consideration at the time the gifts were made. However, there was no supporting evidence because none of the payments was made directly for wedding expenses or to a college or university. Rather, each check was made out for $ 13,000 without any indication of how the applicant intended for it to be spent. Each check was simply a gift in accordance with the maximum allowed without penalty under the tax laws. Since the gifts were properly considered to be transfers for "love and affection," such transfers reflected funds that could have been used for the applicant's care and a penalty was properly imposed on account thereof. M.V. v. DMAHS and Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15653-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 263, Initial Decision (April 20, 2015). Though the documents establishing a special needs trust for a disabled adult satisfied all regulatory requirements, the funds held there were properly considered assets of the beneficiary for the purposes of the application of the rules governing eligibility for Social Security and Medicaid benefits because the trust assets were actually utilized for a whole variety of purposes that were beyond the narrow confines of federal and state law such that it no longer qualified as a special-needs trust. The evidence established that at least $ 8,000 of the original $ 60,329.44 deposited had been given to relatives of the beneficiary for one purpose or another. Leaving aside many other expenditures that arguably yielded some benefit to others besides the beneficiary, this meant that at least 13% of the funds had been used in a way that benefited family members. Since the trust thus was not used for the sole benefit of the beneficiary, it no longer qualified as a special needs trust, and the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services properly considered those assets in determining that the beneficiary's assets exceeded the statutory limit. D.C. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10265-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 111, Initial Decision (February 20, 2015). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that a 42-day transfer penalty was properly imposed on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid was incorrect because the preponderance of the credible evidence showed that the applicant's daughter, who was generally responsible for her care, made some of the challenged transfers for a reason other than to qualify for Medicaid eligibility. Because the daughter convincingly rebutted the presumption that the transfers were made to establish Medicaid eligibility, the transfers on which a penalty was