Page 189

Page 19 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Adult daughter of mother who was disabled as a result of Alzheimer's disease was entitled to the benefit of the "caregiver child" exemption because she established that she cared for her mother on a continuous basis despite the fact that the daughter was employed full-time. The evidence established that the daughter's employer liberally accommodated the daughter's need to care for her mother and allowed her to telecommute for a substantial number of hours during each workweek, therefore making it possible for the daughter to remain in the residence when her mother's condition required it. That being so, the agency should not have denied benefits to the mother. E.C. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15633-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 30, Initial Decision (January 12, 2017). Social services board erred when it terminated an applicant's Medicaid Long Term Social Services benefits. The applicant was entitled to invoke the caregiver child exception because the applicant, who suffered from dementia, lymphoma and ambulatory limitations, established that the care provided by her adult child exceeded the normal personal support activities typically provided in a household. The application of that exemption meant that the transfer of her home to her caregiver child did not result in the application of a transfer penalty. T.H. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10908-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1237, Initial Decision (December 13, 2016). ALJ rejected a ruling denying a caregiver's exemption for the daughter of an elderly woman who suffered from various ailments including severe arthritis that impeded mobility and mental decline. In the two years prior to her transfer to a nursing home, she could not cook, shop for food, bathe independently, monitor her own medications, transfer to a commode without assistance or keep a doctor's appointment. Because the daughter's activities relative to caring for her mother met the requirements for specialized care, the caregiver exemption applied. F.G. v. Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15346-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1239, Initial Decision (December 9, 2016). Hardship waiver application made by a niece as power of attorney for a nursing home resident on whom a 43-day eligibility penalty had been imposed was denied. Because no evidence of a change in the resident's condition that would have made it more difficult for the resident to explain the circumstances surrounding a challenged transfer was produced, the fact that there had been a 17 month delay in the processing of the claim by the social services board, without more, was an insufficient basis for a waiver. F.T. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09134-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1235, Amended Initial Decision (December 9, 2016). Even though the 17-month delay in the processing of a nursing home resident's application for Medicaid was inexcusable, particularly in light of the fact that counsel for the resident's niece, who was her power of attorney, contacted the social services board on 15 different occasions in the 17 month period, the delay did not validate the $ 14,300 in transfers for which no explanation was offered. That being so, the resident's Medicaid eligibility was properly subjected to a 43-day penalty. F.T. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03271-16 n1, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1234, Initial Decision (December 7, 2016). After remand to allow for additional evidence to be submitted relative to the kinds of tasks undertaken by the son of a Medicaid recipient for whom a "caretaker exemption" was sought, an ALJ found that the son and his wife administered the daily medications needed by applicant, a diabetic, and tested her blood glucose levels several times a day; assisted her with ADLs including toileting; bathing; dressing; meal preparation; transportation to and from doctor appointments; shopping; and house cleaning; and that but for the performance of these tasks by the son and his wife, the applicant would have required institutional care from at least 2010 forward. L.K. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15127-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 997, Order on Remand (December 2, 2016). Agency approved of a determination by an ALJ that a Medicaid applicant had properly invoked the "caregiver exemption" with reference to transfers to the adult son with whom she resided in proceedings to determine whether she was eligible for an institutional level of care because it was clearly shown that the care provided by the applicant's son prevented the applicant from needing earlier institutionalization. E.T. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16072-2015, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1385, Final Agency Determination (November 30, 2016).