Page 190

Page 20 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Transfer penalty of 93 days imposed on the eligibility of a 92-year old Medicaid applicant in connection with his transfer of a "life estate" for inadequate value was rejected by an ALJ, who determined that the value of the "life estate" was minimal at most. As no proof was presented to show that it was substantially less than $ 1,000, that amount was accepted as the value of the estate and a transfer penalty of three days was properly imposed. Moreover, the facts were such that the applicant might properly seek an undue hardship waiver. S.P. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 911-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1103, Initial Decision (November 22, 2016). DMAHS erred when it imposed a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of a nursing home resident who sold her house, which had a "tax-assessed value" of more than $ 130,000, for $ 55,000. The resident rebutted the presumption that the proper formula for determining the value of the property was the tax-assessed value of the real estate, multiplied by the reciprocal of the assessment ratio in the most recent State Table of Equalized Valuation. At the time of the sale, the house needed substantial renovations and remediation to address its dilapidated condition which included mold throughout the premises. C.H. v. Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07039-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1095, Initial Decision (November 21, 2016). County social services board erred in denying a Medicaid recipient's application for a caregiver's exemption for her daughter, which denial apparently was solely based on the fact that the daughter worked outside of the home and not on any analysis of whether the care that the daughter provided was "nursing home level care." The record showed that the daughter indeed was providing such care, including assisting her mother with all of the activities of daily living including bathing, grooming, toileting, helping her in and out of bed, providing all her meals, taking her to all her doctor's visits and taking care of the home in which both resided. A.K. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11760-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1090, Initial Decision (November 21, 2016). Agency concurred with the ruling of an ALJ approving a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of an ex-wife on findings that the property settlement agreement signed by her and her husband incident to their divorce was entered into for the purpose of making her eligible for Medicaid, and that the establishment of Medicaid eligibility was the overriding factor in the decision to allocate a disproportionate share of the joint assets to the husband. N.W. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13129-2015, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1361, Final Administrative Determination (November 17, 2016). Application for caregiver's exemption made by an elderly nursing home resident with respect to the care rendered to him by his son should have been granted. More than a preponderance of the credible evidence showed that the son epitomized the dutiful, caring son who gave up living with his girlfriend and resigned from his full-time job to care for his father on a full-time basis, and exemplified the proper application of the exemption. T.W. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06752-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1105, Initial Decision (November 17, 2016). Transfer penalty imposed by a social services board by reason of the transfer, by a Medicaid applicant, of her 40% interest in her daughter's house for $ 120,000 was sustained because the daughter never paid the $ 120,000 to her mother and the applicant later claimed that the $ 120,000 was the value of services provided by the daughter to the mother. A.M. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03076-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1104, Initial Decision (November 17, 2016). Transfer penalty imposed upon the Medicaid eligibility of a nursing home resident on account of his claimed transfer of his home was rescinded because the evidence showed that the sale of the property was not for the home was not for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid but rather for financing to help the resident and his wife was funds were needed to secure the resident's entry into assisted living. Moreover, the social services board erred in assigning an FMV of $ 120,000 given the deplorable condition of the property, which supported a market value equal to or less than the $ 65,000 sale price. J.W. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA00366-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 952, Initial Decision (November 4, 2016). Transfer penalty imposed on an applicant's eligibility for Medicaid was sustained. While the applicant's son showed expenditures in excess of the funds for which an accounting was required, only those expenditures made in