Page 186

Page 16 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets did not carry his burden to prove that the transfers were not made for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility. E.W. v. Morris Cnty. Office of Temp. Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07779-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 652, Initial Decision (August 25, 2017). ALJ rejected the determination of a county social services board that imposed a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility application of an elderly woman who resided with her daughter and her family for 31 years because it was shown by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the assets were transferred to pay for the woman's basic needs while living in her daughter's home. Since the woman's monthly income at no time exceeded $ 1416 and those funds were used to reimburse her daughter for her food, clothing, medical, personal needs and small household contributions, the challenged transfers were not properly considered to be transfers made in anticipation of the receipt of Medicaid and no eligibility penalty should have been imposed. G.B. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05584-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 650, Initial Decision (August 24, 2017). Daughter of an elderly woman who had Alzheimers Disease adequately proved that the level of care that she was providing to her mother during the two years prior to the date of her admission to a nursing home was such that the caregivers' exemption applied. The elderly woman's physician confirmed that if it were not for the daughter's consistent and constant care, the older woman would have needed to enter a facility years earlier. The level of care provided by the daughter was such that the caregivers' exemption clearly applied. P.S. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 3318-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 605, Initial Decision (August 9, 2017). Medicaid applicant who transferred $ 118,048 during the look-back period won partial relief from the transfer penalty. The DMAHS director concluded that because $ 52,415 of the transfers were shown to have been used to reimburse family members for expenses incurred and paid for by family members. That meant that the transfer penalty should have been calculated based on the uncompensated transfers, which were in the amount of $ 65,633. V.R. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 19150-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1189, Final Agency Determination (July 26, 2017). Claim that a social services board should have used the 2017 tax assessment value of a residence instead of the 2016 value in determining the amount of the transfer penalty that was properly imposed on a Medicaid recipient's eligibility was rejected because the applicable formula took into account the FMV of the property if sold at the prevailing price at the time it was actually transferred. Because the residence was transferred in 2016, the 2017 tax assessment was properly disregarded. B.F. v. Cape May Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05752-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 573, Initial Decision (July 20, 2017). Transfer penalty imposed upon an applicant for Medicaid-only benefits on account of the sale of his home was properly calculated based on tax-assessed value for the property of $ 220,500, adjusted by use of the 2015 Equalized Valuation Ratio to $ 217,305. No value could be assigned to the repairs that were alleged by the applicant to be required because the certificate of occupancy inspection report was unsigned and no estimates of the cost of the repairs that were allegedly needed were submitted. Moreover, the value of the property had to be adjusted upward to account for the additional benefit resulting from the presence, on the property, of a billboard that was subject to a 30-year lease. M.T. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02698-17 (ON REMAND HMA 13332- 16), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 557, Initial Decision (July 18, 2017). Although an elderly woman's condition in the months preceding her admission to a nursing home was well documented and indicated that she had functional limitations with incontinence, ambulation, and forgetfulness at that time, there was insufficient non-anecdotal evidence detailing her condition over the two-year period that preceded her admission to establish both her condition and that the level of care provided by a daughter met the regulatory standards for the "caregiver exemption," so application thereof was not authorized. F.G. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03876-17 (ON REMAND HMA 15346-16), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 538, Initial Decision (July 12, 2017). Director of DMAHS rejected the argument of a Medicaid applicant that transferred assets on which an eligibility penalty was imposed were incorrectly valued on findings that, for Medicaid purposes and absent a certified