Page 157

Page 4 of 5 § 10:71-4.6 Deeming of resources Widow whose son wrongfully converted the proceeds from the sale of her house to his own benefit contrary to his fiduciary duty won a ruling that such proceeds were "inaccessible" and "unavailable" to the widow due to no fault of her own. The prior determination of a county board of social services to impose a penalty on the sale of the home had been rendered moot by intervening court action, and it was appropriate to remove the penalty and to grant a hardship waiver. M.M. v. DMAHS and Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08333-13, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 391, Initial Decision (July 15, 2015). 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). Determination by the Division of Medical Assistance and Services (DMAHS) and a county Board of Social Services denying an application for Medicaid filed on behalf of an elderly women who had dementia and resided in a nursing home based on her joint ownership, with an adult son who was permanently disabled, of stock valued at $ 89,309.28 was unsupported by the evidence and properly rejected. The son, a permanently incapacitated adult who permanently resided in a VA hospital, was totally blind, had no recollection of his mother being alive, and refused to sign any documents relating to the stock. Given the son's condition, it could not be said that the assets at issue were accessible to the mother because she had no power to liquidate them without her son's approval, and thus the stocks could not be included as countable resources of the applicant according to governing regulations. To the extent that the determination of ineligibility relied on the existence of the stocks, it was incorrect, and the applicant was entitled to an order granting her application for Medicaid. F.F. v. DMAHS and Union Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00793-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 318, Initial Decision (June 3, 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). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Bergen County Board of Social Services erred when, relying on N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.5(b)3, it denied a Medicaid application filed by an elderly husband (Husband) and imposed a transfer penalty of 17 months and 20 days, making Husband's eligibility date September 21, 2014, based on its finding that the assets represented by three certificate of deposit (CDs) accounts titled to his wife (Wife) and Wife's sister (Sister) constituted resources within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.6 that were "available" to Husband within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(c) and could be converted to cash and used for the Husband's support and maintenance. Wife and Sister's submission on that issue, which included a statement from the financial institution where the accounts were held, established that the funds used to obtain the CDs were owned in toto by Sister, who was elderly, had no children, and lived alone; and that Sister's intention, in titling the accounts as she did, was to assure that Wife would have access to the funds in the event that Sister became incapacitated or to pay for her funeral expenses. Because the submission met the standards in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10( o)3 and established that the funds were not a resource of Husband, the ALJ concluded that there was no basis for the imposition of a