Page 165

Page 5 of 8 § 10:71-4.8 Institutional eligibility; resources of a couple controlled; the "no more restrictive" provision was superseded by Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA). Mistrick v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services, 154 N.J. 158, 712 A.2d 188 (N.J. 1998). Denial of a judgment discharging a priority lien for reimbursement of Medicaid benefits against a decedent's estate was affirmed because despite having never exercising the elective share against the augmented estate of his wife during his lifetime, it was available to him and he was not excepted from N.J.S.A. 3B:8-1 since he was never divorced and the physical separation by residing in a nursing home was not by itself enough to prevent him from claiming an elective share. In re Estate of Brown, 2017 N.J. Super. LEXIS 8 (2017). Because the date on which an applicant for Medicaid moved into an assisted living facility was not the date on which she became "institutionalized" and needed "nursing facility"-level care, the applicant's request to have that day be the date used for the Pre-Admission Screening (PAS) "snapshot" was rejected as contrary to governing rules. H.H. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 4848-2019, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1103, Initial Decision (December 27, 2019). Decedent's Medicaid application was properly denied due to excess resources. The county social services board was right to determine that his wife's payment of $ 204,000 to purchase a single premium annuity that would pay her $ 68,008.51 a month for three months constituted a use of funds to create a new resource that was available until the statutorily-mandated time rendered the annuity irrevocable. Based on the date on which the annuity became irrevocable, the decedent had died before he could become Medicaid-eligible. G.S. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1838-2018, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1340, Final Agency Determination (December 21, 2018). Because the amount of countable resources available to a Medicaid recipient was properly evaluated as of the first day of every month, an ALJ's determination that the recipient's eligibility was terminated on the last day of the month in which her countable resources, which had increased due to the death of her husband, exceeded the permitted amount was incorrect. The ruling below was properly modified to utilize the correct date. In re Froehner, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 0056-2018, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1142, Final Agency Determination (June 5, 2018). Medicaid applicant prevailed on a claim that assets classified by the agency as "excess resources" in fact were properly allocated to the community spouse. Once that allocation was made and even though it in fact would not generate sufficient income to bridge the gap between the community spouse's available resources and her verified minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, the applicant was eligible for Medicaid and thus was entitled to an order awarding benefits. E.J. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07245-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 822, Initial Decision (November 13, 2017). Medicaid recipient was not entitled to an increase of the Community Spouse Reserve Allowance (CSRA) based on a claimed significant hardship that constituted exceptional circumstances. Though family members testified to what was claimed to be a pressing need for maintenance and repairs to the spouse's residence, the son-in-law, who was a self-employed residential home builder, had not performed any repairs of any kind to the property since 1995 and the family witnesses appears to have personal financial motivations that would be served by an increase. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary or exceptional about the recipient's expenses that caused her significant financial duress, and thus, would justify an increase in her CSRA. The cited home repair issues were simply repair issues caused by her failure to do normal annual maintenance and repairs over the years. J.W. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00448-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 232, Initial Decision (April 13, 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).