Page 187

Page 17 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets appraisal, the equity value of real property was the tax-assessed value of the property multiplied by the reciprocal of the assessment ratio as recorded in the most recently issued State Table of Equalized Valuations, less encumbrances, if any. However, a correction was necessary because the ratio of assessed value to true value was 105.82% not 107.68%, which affected the value of the transfer at issue. R.S. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1885-2016 and OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1031-2017 (Consolidated), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1340, Final Agency Determination (June 30, 2017). ALJ correctly concluded that a Medicaid applicant failed to timely request or qualify for an undue hardship exception by showing that she made good faith efforts to recover assets that were found to have been transferred. Because the applicant did not request a waiver of the penalty nor demonstrate that the transferred assets were beyond her control and cannot be recovered, the ALJ correctly concluded the applicant was not entitled to relief under the undue hardship exception. A.B. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17240-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1110, Final Agency Determination (June 9, 2017). ALJ properly concluded that a Medicaid applicant was not entitled to relief from a transfer penalty based on undue hardship because the applicant did not demonstrate that the transferred assets on which the penalty was premised were beyond her control and unrecoverable. Nor was any evidence offered to show that the applicant's health or life would be endangered if the undue hardship waiver was denied. That being so, the applicant did not show that she was entitled to an undue hardship waiver of the penalty. S.A. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15903-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1162, Final Agency Determination (June 1, 2017). Assets held in a trust of which a Medicaid applicant was both a grantor and a co-trustee were not "countable assets" for the purpose of determining the applicant's eligibility because the trust expressly provided that the applicant could not receive any amounts from the trust under any circumstances. Also, the trust was created more than ten years prior to the date on which the applicant sought Medicaid benefits. M.K. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05523-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 347, Initial Decision (May 25, 2017). Agency director rejected the Initial Decision of an ALJ which found that a Medicaid applicant had established that payments to her son totaling $ 89,560 represented FMV rent paid to the son for housing. The claims that the transfers were rent were unsupported because neither the applicant nor her husband testified, because the terms of the agreement were mercurial, because there were no payments to the son of the agreed-upon amount of $ 1800 but payments ranging from $ 2060 to $ 5000 were made, and because the amount reported as rental income on the son's tax returns was less than the amounts of the transfers. Because the applicant did not demonstrate that the purpose of the transfers was for a reason other than Medicaid eligibility, a penalty was properly based on the entire amount that was transferred. L.M. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16647-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1163, Final Agency Determination (May 17, 2017). Because an applicant waived his elective share in his deceased wife's home more than 60 months prior to the date on which he applied for Medicaid benefits, that transfer was beyond the 60-month look-back period and no eligibility penalty was properly applied. W.W. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17796- 16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 250, Final Administrative Determination (April 27, 2017). Medicaid applicant who signed a contract agreeing to pay all expenses of residing in a nursing home for a guaranteed two year period was not entitled to have the asset transfer-related penalty period run while she was in private pay status. Her claim of financial eligibility was a sham designed to have a Medicaid bed waiting for her when her assets ran out. Further, the facility would not accept payments from Medicaid until the applicant had been a resident of the facility for two years. Because the application for Medicaid benefits was premature, the county social services board acted properly in denying it. B.K. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs. et al, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 18569-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 224, Initial Decision (April 24, 2017). Letter sent to applicant for Institutional Medicaid determining her eligibility and imposing a transfer penalty period adequately informed the applicant of her right to request an undue hardship exception. That said, the applicant did