Page 192

Page 22 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets ALJ approved of a transfer penalty imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of an ex-wife on findings that the circumstances surrounding the execution of a property settlement agreement (PSA) by the parties were such that the ex-wife did not rebut the presumption that the PSA was entered in for the purpose of making the ex-wife Medicaid eligible. Once the equity in the couple's house was included in the shared assets, the ex-wife in fact received only about 1/3 of the value of the couple's property. Though the ex-wife may have wished to provide for her former husband to remain in the community even after their divorce, establishing Medicaid eligibility for herself was the overriding factor in the determination to allocate more of the joint assets to the ex-husband so the transfer penalty imposed by DMAHS was properly approved. N.W. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13129-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 725, Initial Decision (August 22, 2016). County social services board erred in agreeing to reduce the transfer penalty imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of a 96 year old recipient based on her transfer, to her son, of assets totaling $ 81,100.13. Because the regulations governing a return of such assets as a prelude to establishing eligibility required that the applicant show that the entire amount had been returned, the amounts represented by checks written by the son, which totaled $ 17,803,84, were not properly applied to reduce the penalty, and the original penalty of $ 81,100.13 had to stand. A.K. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 475-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1140, Final Administrative Determination (August 5, 2016). Transfer penalty imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of a 95 year old man was reversed by an ALJ. The applicant's family, though asserting an innocent payee defense to the claim that funds were transferred without fair value, returned the funds to the applicant's widow, but the agency representative apparently failed or refused to agree that the dispute was mooted by the return of the funds, conduct that the ALJ characterized as arbitrary and capricious. D.B. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08561-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 695, Initial Decision (August 4, 2016). County social services board erred when it classified a $ 653 payment received monthly by a special needs trust for a disabled Medicaid applicant as "available income" for purposes of an eligibility determination because the applicant did not personally receive the annuity income payments, which were payable only to the trustee of the trust and were subject to the trustee's disposition. N.U. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07715-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 710, Initial Decision (August 1, 2016). Transfers by a Medicaid applicant of $ 13,000 to her niece and her great-niece were dispositions at less than fair market value during the sixty-month look back period and thus supported the decision of a county social services board that the applicant's eligibility was subject to a transfer penalty of two months and two days. T.O. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13624-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 685, Initial Decision (August 1, 2016). ALJ agreed with the transfer penalty imposed by a social services board on the eligibility of a Medicaid applicant reflecting its finding that the applicant had transferred $ 78,015.05 for less than fair value. Though the recipient of those funds, being the applicant's daughter, was disabled and received SSDI, the record suggested that the daughter was not permanently and totally disabled within the meaning of relevant federal regulations and that to the extent that such funds were spent by the daughter for expenditures benefiting her household, other household members including the daughter's husband derived a benefit therefrom with the result that the transfers were not exempt from penalty. G.H. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07348-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 694, Initial Decision (July 28, 2016). Application made by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) challenging a transfer penalty and seeking a hardship waiver was denied. The OPG was acting on behalf of an elderly man whose Alzheimer's was such that he was wholly unable to assist OPG in determining how certain funds had been used. Since the denial had occurred during a period of time when an attorney was acting as the man's temporary guardian and the attorney had not filed a timely appeal, any recourse was solely against the lawyer. L.B. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 01203-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 693, Initial Decision (July 28, 2016).