Page 188

Page 18 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets not meet the criteria for a hardship exemption in any event. A.B. v. Morris Cnty. Office of Temporary Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17240-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 220, Initial Decision (April 24, 2017). Social services board should not have imposed a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant who also was the parent of a disabled child who was the beneficiary of a special needs trust which was to be funded with the proceeds from the sale of the applicant's house. To the extent that the transfer benefited the special needs trust, by definition it was not a transfer for less than FMV within the meaning of governing regulations. Moreover, given the deplorable condition of the property, its equalized value of $ 146,000 should not have been considered equivalent to its FMV, which was shown to be $ 72,000, and the sale of the property for $ 71,000 was not for "less than FMV." D.H. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 18715-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 164, Initial Decision (March 16, 2017). DMAHS reversed the determination of an ALJ that the caregiver exemption applied to protect a nursing home resident from a penalty based upon her transfer of her house to her daughter because the record did not contain any competent medical evidence of the resident's condition. The only documentation in the record was suspect for many reasons among which was the fact that the dates next to the physician's signature reflected the passage of four years but the documents appeared to have been drafted at the same time. V.V. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 3183-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 991, Final Agency Determination (March 15, 2017). Penalty was properly imposed on petitioner's Medicaid eligibility on account of $ 626,704 in transfers from an account that contained funds that had been contributed to the account by the petitioner and his deceased wife. Even though the names of his son and daughter-in-law had been added to the account, the presence of their names on the account did not entitle them to the funds and while the son claimed that a substantial number of the transfers were made to him on account of rent for periods during which the petitioner had lived in his home, there was no documentary evidence supporting the rent claim. T.E.B. v. Salem Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12646-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 131, Initial Decision (March 1, 2017). DMAHS rejected an ALJ's determination that a Medicaid applicant was entitled to invoke the "caregiver exemption" in connection with the applicant's transfer of his home to her daughter, thereby shielding the home's FMV from inclusion in the amount on which a transfer penalty was properly based. Because the record below did not specifically show that the applicant had resided in the community for the required two year period, reversal and remand were required so as to assure that specific findings on that and the other criteria were made. A.K. v. DMAHS et al, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11760-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 521, Remand Order (February 17, 2017). DMAHS rejected an ALJ's determination that a Medicaid applicant was entitled to invoke the "caregiver exemption" in connection with the applicant's transfer of his home to his son, thereby to shield the FMV of the home from being included in the amount on which a transfer penalty was properly based. Inasmuch as petitioner received care from a caregiving service at a weekly cost of $ 900, the matter was properly remanded for further findings about the source of the funds used to pay for such services. T.W. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 6752- 2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 509, Remand Order (February 17, 2017). Medicaid applicant established that payments made to her son totaling $ 89,560 represented FMV rent paid to the son for housing and amount was properly deducted from total of expenditures that were classified as having been made for other than fair value. That being so, the transfer penalty had to be recalculated based on $ 51,304 in transfers. L.M. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.,OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16647-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 101, Initial Decision (February 17, 2017). Penalty imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of a 99 year old woman was modified because her $ 1,000 "donation" to assist her sister (who died soon thereafter) in paying medical expenses represented a permitted exception. However, two other expenditures totaling $ 1500 representing two gifts to her niece for her birthday and graduation exceeded the amount of what would be customary gifts, so $ 200 of the $ 1500 expenditure would also be disregarded in determining the penalty period. M.G. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16652-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 57, Initial Decision (January 31, 2017).