Page 191

Page 21 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets the "look-back period" were properly considered and those expenditures did not equal or exceed the amount for which an accounting was required. E.M. v. Camden Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA4361-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 953, Initial Decision (November 3, 2016). DMAHS directed a social services board to consider whether a 95-year old Medicaid applicant on whom a transfer penalty had been imposed was now eligible for Medicaid on findings that funds that were claimed by the agency to have been transferred without fair value had been returned in full. D.B. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08561-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1312, Final Administrative Determination (October 31, 2016). Imposition of transfer penalty on an applicant's Medicaid eligibility based on allegedly uncompensated transfer of $ 78,015 was disapproved by DMAHS. While there was evidence suggesting that the funds had been transferred to applicant's disabled daughter, a determination of whether the daughter in fact was disabled and whether all of the transfers went to the daughter needed to be made before a ruling could be made on the Medicaid application. G.H. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07348-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1328, Final Agency Decision (October 18, 2016). DMAHS director rejected an ALJ's determination that the services provided to a Medicaid recipient by her son met the criteria of "special attention and care" on which the "caregiver" exemption was based because there was no expert testimony or contemporaneous medical notes or bills, and a letter from the recipient's doctor was insufficient to support the ALJ's finding that the recipient needed a "nursing home level of care" during the years prior to her institutionalization. L.K. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05437-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1162, Remand Order (September 20, 2016). DMAHS director rejected an ALJ's determination that the services provided to a Medicaid recipient by her son met the criteria of "special attention and care" on which the "caregiver" exemption was based because there was no competent medical evidence that the recipient's medical diagnoses and condition during the two years prior to her institutionalization was at a level that she would have needed special care, without which the recipient would have been in a nursing home. O.T. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05459-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1164, Remand Order (September 8, 2016). Medicaid applicant 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. Her son clearly took great care of the applicant for as long as he could, assisting her in all her daily living activities, including dressing, grooming, bathing, toileting and providing meals. He also took care of all the shopping, laundry, her doctor's appointments and everything relating to the home. Such a level of activity clearly exceeded "normal personal support activities" and the caregiver exemption clearly applied. E.T. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16072-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 750, Initial Decision (September 1, 2016). Director of DMAHS reversed a finding by an ALJ that a transfer penalty imposed upon the Medicaid eligibility of a nursing home resident was properly reduced because the only issue before the ALJ in fact was the nursing home's request for a hardship waiver. Moreover, the original determination imposing the transfer penalty, which had been properly calculated, was never appealed and thus could not be relitigated in the guise of a request for a hardship waiver. L.B., Petitioner, v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 1203-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1144, Final Administrative Determination (August 29, 2016). Medicaid applicant failed to show that property transfers pursuant to a property settlement agreement with his now-former wife was made for adequate consideration were made solely for a purpose other than qualifying for Medicaid. The applicant offered no corroborating evidence to establish that the challenged transfers were done for a purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid benefits. In fact, the evidence presented showed that Medicaid benefits were affirmatively contemplated as part of the property settlement agreement. R.W. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00703-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1142, Final Administrative Determination (August 26, 2016).