Page 156

Page 3 of 5 § 10:71-4.6 Deeming of resources County social services board erred when it established an eligibility date of February 1, 2015 on an application for Medicaid benefits. Although the board denied having received relevant information about real estate owned by the applicant and listed for sale prior to the August 14, 2014 application for benefits, the evidence clearly showed that all of the necessary information was provided to the board with the August 14, 2014 application and that a DRA- compliant annuity was purchased thereafter. That being so, the property should not have been considered an includable asset and the eligibility date should have been the date on which the application was made, which was August 14, 2014. M.O. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13076-15, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 836, Initial Decision (November 8, 2017). Institutionalized spouse who failed to cause her attorney-in-fact to elect against the estate of her deceased husband within the statutory 6-month period was properly found to have transferred those assets into the inter vivos trust of the deceased spouse for less than FMV and such amounts were properly considered in determining and imposing a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of the institutionalized spouse. R.L. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09762-14, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 669, Initial Decision (August 30, 2017). Even though no exceptions were filed to the ALJ's recommendation finding that an annuity owned by a trust established by the will of the community spouse's father was not properly considered in determining a Medicaid applicant's available resources, disbursements from that trust would be considered in determining the applicant's eligibility. Additionally, guaranteed income payments from the annuity would count towards the income of the applicant's wife in the determination as to income to which she was entitled under spousal impoverishment rules. C.L. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10901-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 468, Order Adopting Initial Decision and Remanding (February 13, 2017). Annuity payable to the community spouse of an institutionalized Medicaid applicant, while a "resource" within the technical meaning of the word, nevertheless was not "available" within the meaning of Medicaid regulations. The annuity was purchased by the trustee of a testamentary trust created by the community's spouse's now-deceased father, neither of the spouses had contributed to it and neither could compel the trustee to distribute any amount to either of them. In other words, the annuity was property which was not accessible by her or available to her or the applicant, meaning that it is an excludable resource that should not be considered in determining Medicaid eligibility. C.L. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10901-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1012, Initial Decision (November 25, 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). 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). Applicant for Medicaid institutional level services was properly denied benefits on findings that he had transferred his residence to a third person, presumably retaining a life estate therein, because such a transfer was made for less than its FMV. A.M. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08483-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 425, Initial Decision (July 16, 2015).