Page 193

Page 23 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets ALJ corrected the amount of transfers for which transfer penalties were properly imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant, which transfers amounted to $ 62,500, not $ 83,000, with the result that the length of the penalty period properly was reduced. P.S. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9399-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 672, Initial Decision (July 28, 2016). Denial, by a county social services board, of a Medicaid applicant's claim that transfers to her son came within the "caregivers exemption" was rejected by an ALJ who found that the care provided by the son and his fiancee, among others, exceeded normal personal support activities; that the applicant's condition was such that she required special attention and care; and that the care that was provided was essential to the applicant's health and safety and included supervision of medication, monitoring of nutritional status, and insuring the safety of the applicant and made it possible for the applicant to remain at home for an extended period of time. O.T. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05459-2016, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 660, Initial Decision (July 21, 2016). Director rejected an ALJ's determination that certain amounts disbursed by a Medicaid recipient did not generate a transfer penalty and remanded for redetermination of the proper transfer penalty. P.N. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02975-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1150, Remand Order (July 18, 2016). Penalty was properly imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of a widow who did not satisfactorily account for her disposition of $ 168,000 of the proceeds of a reverse mortgage. The widow admitted that she had used large sums of cash for groceries, medical care, shopping, home repairs, cash gifts to family members, travel and lottery tickets. Because the widow failed to establish that she did not transfer assets for less than FMV, a penalty on eligibility was properly imposed. J.S. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10758-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 557, Initial Decision (July 11, 2016). Medicaid recipient prevailed on a claim that she was entitled to invoke the "caregiver's exemption" with respect to her son. Both her son and her daughter-in-law, with whom the recipient lived, provided substantial care to the recipient including overseeing her medication, preparing her meals in a manner that was mindful of her particular nutritional requirements, and otherwise assisting her in the activities of daily life. The fact that the son was employed full-time did not prevent the care provided by the couple from exceeding the threshold of "normal personal support activities." L.K. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05437-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 552, Initial Decision (June 29, 2016). Transfer penalty properly was imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant on account of her having gifted a total of $ 10,000 to her two adult children. Although her son claimed that the transfer reflected a bequest under his deceased father's will, the applicant was the sole beneficiary of the will. Other irregularities in the applicant's financial dealings were also a factor. P.N. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02975-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 550, Initial Decision (June 28, 2016). Two month penalty was properly imposed on an applicant's Medicaid eligibility on account of her having transferred her two-thirds interest in certain real estate for less than market value within the look-back period. Though other family members testified to their sincerely-held belief that the applicant did not own such an interest in the transferred property, such testimony was insufficient to overcome documentary evidence demonstrating otherwise. Moreover, even if the property had been placed in trust for the applicant, that would not change the result because the applicant had already transferred her interest for less than market value. L.S. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15032-14, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 535, Initial Decision (June 27, 2016). Decision by a county board of social services that an applicant for long-term care Medicaid benefits was properly subjected to a transfer penalty on account of her uncompensated transfer of $ 51,000 was approved in part by an ALJ who concluded that the applicant had unrestricted access to the joint bank account from which the funds were withdrawn. The fact that the board did not act as promptly as might have been desired in approving the applicant's use of a Qualified Income Trust provided no basis for any relief. However, the start date for the penalty period had been incorrectly designated by the board and should have been May 1, 2015. A.D. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02068-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 523, Initial Decision (June 16, 2016).