Page 181

Page 11 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets were excluded from the patient's countable resources. Since the patient was incapacitated due to dementia and Alzheimer's, the patient did not have access to the cash value of the life insurance policies and, ultimately, when a Public Guardian finally was appointed to oversee the patient's person and property, the resource was quickly spent down. I.L. v. NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF HUMAN SERVS., 389 N.J. Super. 354, 913 A.2d 122, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 347 (2006). Because a grantor's transfer of certain property to her children occurred on the date in which the deed to the property was executed, conveyed to her heirs, and accepted by them, said transfer for less than fair market value did not occur within the look-back period that pertained in respect of her subsequent application for Medicaid assistance; moreover, an agency head with the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services erred by importing the rebuttable presumption that applied within the look-back period to the period of time that preceded that look-back period, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) and (c) H.K. v. STATE, 184 N.J. 367, 877 A.2d 1218, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 927 (2005). Court concluded that N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(p)2i, which caps the amount of funds which may be used to acquire a commercial irrevocable and non-assignable annuity at the community spouse resource allowance limit, was invalid because it was inconsistent with federal law, and therefore violative of the Supremacy Clause. Estate of F.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 374 N.J. Super. 126, 863 A.2d 1065, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 7 (2005). Under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(f), the State of New Jersey is to be named the first remainder beneficiary on an annuity. Estate of F.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 374 N.J. Super. 126, 863 A.2d 1065, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 7 (2005). Transfer penalty of 646 days was properly applied to the Medicaid qualification of an applicant based on the applicant's conduct in gifting, to her grandson, the net proceeds received by her as a result of the sale of her personal residence. The agency had to utilize the value of the home as assessed by the city to establish FMV because no other information or documentation bearing on the proper valuation of the home was provided by the applicant or her representative. I.B. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05905-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 192, Initial Decision (February 23, 2024). ALJ concluded that the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services acted properly in imposing a 237-day penalty period on account of a transfer of $ 91,460 belonging to the applicant despite the fact that the applicant claimed that she had been defrauded of this amount in a scam orchestrated by unidentified persons. While a good faith effort was made to rebut the presumption that such funds were transferred for FMV, no witnesses were called, either from the police department or from the facility where the applicant resided, to explain and discuss suspicions surrounding the questionable transactions. While the applicant would not be required to show an indictment or similar documentation, the ALJ concluded that the lack of any live testimony relative to the fraud claim meant that the applicant had not met her burden on this issue. C.T. v. Morris Cnty. Dep't of Human Serv./Office of Temp. Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04165-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 188, Initial Decision (February 21, 2024). Medicaid application made on behalf of a divorced wife was properly denied for failure to provide verification of information relative to her assets and financial transactions. Specifically, the applicant failed to submit documentation confirming her claims relative to several large disbursements including $ 5000 that allegedly was spent to repair her kitchen, $ 1000 that allegedly was spent to repair her bathroom, and various amounts that were claimed to have been lost in a scam. Moreover, because the applicant claimed to have sent funds to her ex- husband's attorney in connection with the couple's divorce but did not substantiate that expense, the applicant did not carry her burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer was made for establish Medicaid eligibility. F.R. v. Monmouth Cty. Div. of Soc. Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07300-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 112, Initial Decision (January 16, 2024). Determination of a county welfare agency that an applicant for Medicaid was not entitled to benefits based on its finding that the applicant had not timely provided information needed to determine his eligibility was reversed and remanded for additional proceedings on the ground that where, as here, several Medicaid applications had been