Page 183

Page 13 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets M.K. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05700-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 731, Final Agency Determination (July 12, 2018). Agency rejected an ALJ determination that a Medicaid applicant was properly denied benefits based on the language of a trust into which she had transferred her residence more than five years earlier. Since the residence was the sole asset transferred and that transfer had occurred more than five years earlier, it was not within the five year look-back period and was not properly relied upon as a basis for a denial of benefits. C.P. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10565-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1270, Final Agency Determination (June 21, 2018). Medicaid applicant who transferred all of her assets to a trust in 2005 was not properly subjected to a penalty on Medicaid eligibility based on those transfers because they occurred well before the commencement of the five-year look-back provision and thus could not be the basis of a penalty. That said, however, the language of the trust was such that the applicant was entitled to income from the trust with the result that a penalty based on the value of the income foreclosed to the applicant was properly imposed. A.M. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9252-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1297, Final Agency Determination (May 31, 2018). A Medicaid applicant who claims to have received fair market value in a transfer of assets that occurred within the five-year look-back period bears the burden to establish the type of care or services that were provided in exchange therefor, the type and terms of compensation and the FMV of the compensation. The applicant also bears the burden to show that the compensation was not greater than the prevailing rates for similar care or services in the community. M.P. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11246-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1004, Final Agency Determination (May 17, 2018). Settlement resolving a contested divorce proceeding between two elderly spouses who had been married for 11 years was not a transfer that was done to establish Medicaid eligibility of the wife. While there was no doubt that the wife had contemplated issues relating to Medicaid eligibility during the divorce proceedings, contemplating Medicaid did not effect a transfer of assets such as that considered here because that transfer was made for fair market value and the settlement was consistent with provisions of applicable state law. L.M. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14804-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1144, Final Agency Determination (May 11, 2018). While a nursing home resident's transfer, to her daughter, of an interest in the resident's home may have implicated the so-called "caregiver exemption" and thus required further analysis to determine whether that exemption was appropriately invoked, that exemption could not be claimed based on care allegedly rendered by the spouse of a son or daughter because the caregiver exemption had no application to a son-in-law or daughter-in- law. V.W. v. DMAHS et al, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 8410-2017, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1179, Final Agency Determination (May 3, 2018). Medicaid recipient was not entitled to claim the "caregiver exemption" with respect to his transfer, to his son, of the recipient's residence because the recipient had been receiving an "institutional level of care" in his home since 2002 so there could not be any basis for finding that the son had provided that level of care to the recipient during the two years prior to the 2016 transfer of the residence. E.S. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16705-17, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 926, Final Agency Determination (May 3, 2018). Adult son of an 84-year old Medicaid applicant with complex medical conditions met the criteria for the caretaker exemption with respect to the applicant's transfer, to the son, of her residence for less than FMV because the son had had taken family leave from his employment to care for the applicant, resided with the applicant and served as the applicant's PCA. That being so, no penalty was properly imposed on the applicant's Medicaid eligibility. E.S. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16705-17, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 85, Initial Decision (February 14, 2018). Medicaid applicant did not establish a right to have the "caregiver exemption" applied to reduce the transfer penalty imposed on her benefits eligibility. The tasks performed by the daughter to whom she transferred her residence during the look-back period did not rise to the level of care required to be shown to qualify for that exemption. This was particularly true as applicant was able to perform daily activities on her own including eating