Page 166

Page 6 of 8 § 10:71-4.8 Institutional eligibility; resources of a couple 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). Though an institutionalized spouse who had applied for Medicaid benefits had excess resources, those excess resources were insufficient to generate sufficient income to sustain the community spouse. That being so, the institutional spouse was entitled to an award of benefits notwithstanding the existence of "excess resources." M.K. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12083-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 970, Initial Decision (November 16, 2016). Director of DMAHS reversed a finding by an ALJ that a transfer penalty imposed upon the Medicaid eligibility of a nursing home resident was properly reduced because the only issue before the ALJ in fact was the nursing home's request for a hardship waiver. Moreover, the original determination imposing the transfer penalty, which had been properly calculated, was never appealed and thus could not be relitigated in the guise of a request for a hardship waiver. L.B., Petitioner, v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1203-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1144, Final Administrative Determination (August 29, 2016). Widow was properly denied relief on her challenge to the effective date of Medicaid eligibility for her now- deceased husband. Once all needed information was provided, the agency reasonably determined countable resources and spend-down requirements. Inasmuch as the couple had excess resources until November 2012, a December 2012 eligibility date was appropriate. E.C. v. DMAHS and Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00149-13, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1138, Final Administrative Determination (July 18, 2016). ALJ's finding that a county acted incorrectly when it denied a Medicaid application by an institutionalized spouse (since deceased) was rejected by DMAHS because the ALJ relied on cases relating to VA aid and attendance benefits, not the pension benefits that the spouse received. While the VA pension was not counted as part of the eligibility determination, it was properly considered in determining the spouse's post-eligibility treatment of income. Moreover, when the spousal impoverishment rules were applied to the correct calculation of post-eligibility income, it was clear that the spouse was not eligible for Medicaid benefits due to excess resources even without taking the VA pension into account. R.B. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15134-2012, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 895, Final Administrative Determination (June 22, 2016). Widow was properly denied relief on her challenge to the effective date of Medicaid eligibility for her now- deceased husband. The agency representative fulfilled his duty to notify the couple of the status of the application and of the steps that the couple had to take in order to complete the process. Once all of the needed information was provided, the agency acted reasonably in determining countable resources and spend-down requirements. Moreover, even if the agency should have notified the couple about the status, the fact was that the couple had excess resources until November 2012, thereby authorizing an eligibility date of December 2012. E.C. v. DMAHS and Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00149-13, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 451, Initial Decision (June 9, 2016). VA benefits payable to an institutionalized spouse that resulted from unusual medical expenses (UMEs) incurred by the institutionalized spouse were properly excluded as income in determining whether, per N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.8 and N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.7, the community spouse was entitled to an increased community spouse resource allowance. R.B. v. DMAHS and Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15134-12, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 210, Initial Decision (April 15, 2016).