Page 182

Page 12 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets filed, the review of the applicant's financial history had to be based on the five year period that was prior to the first of such applications. That being so, the "look-back" period for this applicant was the five-year period prior to the first application, which was filed in 2018, rather than the most recent application, filed in October 2019. J.G. v. Morris Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04827-20, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 52, Order Reversing and Remanding Denial of Benefits (February 23, 2021). DMAHS adopted an ALJ's Initial Decision finding that certain transfers made by a Medicaid applicant provided a basis for a transfer penalty on the applicant's eligibility because the recipient failed to adduce any convincing evidence that the transfers were done for any purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid benefits. A.K. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15011-2019, 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 55, Final Agency Determination (January 27, 2020). DMAHS rejected the claim of a Medicaid recipient who had been granted a January 1 eligibility date that the agency had lacked the authority to impose a transfer penalty based on the agency's post-eligibility discovery that the recipient had transferred the proceeds of sale of her residence to her daughter within the 60-month look-back period. The transfer penalty was imposed subsequent to the issuance of the notice of eligibility because the recipient had failed to disclose the transfer and there was no merit to the recipient's position that the agency should be prevented from imposing the transfer penalty on these facts. MM v. Middlesex Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05078-19, 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 54, Final Agency Determination (January 27, 2020). DMAHS sustained an ALJ's Initial Decision finding that a 133-day penalty was properly imposed upon an applicant's Medicaid eligibility by reason of the sale of her residence within the exclusion period for less than its FMV of $ 174,127.78. It was clearly established that the applicant was contemplating applying for Medicaid when she sought to sell the residence to her daughter because the applicant was living in a nursing home and had already applied for Medicaid. The evidence also showed that the applicant's daughter had told the real estate agent that the reason that the residence was being sold was related to the applicant's Medicaid eligibility and that the residence in fact was never listed for sale. D.L. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10534-2019, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1083, Final Agency Determination (December 22, 2019).Board of Social Services erred in setting the date on which a penalty period based on asset transfers was to run as the date of an applicant's original Medicaid application because the proper date for the commencement of a penalty period was the date on which an applicant was otherwise eligible for benefits. E.G. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16389-2018, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 116, Final Agency Determination (February 27, 2019). Because a case in which a Medicaid recipient had challenged a transfer penalty had been remanded for the specific purpose of allowing the recipient to create a record as to the recipient's medical condition and cognate need for nursing care, the recipient's failure to provide evidence on that specific issue afforded grounds for a ruling adopting the ALJ's initial decision imposing a transfer penalty arising out of the recipient's transfer of her residence to her son. O.T. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14447-2016 (On REMAND FROM OAL DKT. NO. HMA 5459-2016), 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1006, Final Agency Determination (November 19, 2018). Where a lien reflecting a debt of the grandson of a nursing home resident encumbered the resident's home and was required to be paid out of escrow upon the sale of the home to a different family member, the amount of that lien constituted a transfer for less than fair market value for which the resident's Medicaid eligibility was properly penalized. This and other transfers reduced the resident's countable assets so as to make her eligible for Medicaid and it could not be said that such transfers were done solely for a reason other than the resident's Medicaid eligibility. A.S. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 18548-2016, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1189, Final Agency Determination (October 30, 2018). Agency approved and adopted an ALJ's determination imposing a transfer penalty on Medicaid eligibility based on an applicant's transfer of $ 65,000 to her adult daughter. An agreement between the applicant and the daughter indicated that Medicaid eligibility appeared to have been a factor in the decision to transfer the funds with the result that the presumption that the transfer was made to establish Medicaid eligibility was not rebutted. Nor did the "caregiver child exception" apply because the transfer did not involve an equity interest in the applicant's residence.