Page 194

Page 24 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets County board properly imposed a 638 day transfer penalty period on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid Only based on her transfer of property for less than FMV and denied a subsequent request for an undue hardship exception. The property that was transferred in exchange for $ 50,000 and payment of a $ 37,000 tax lien was the applicant's house, which house was worth around $ 250,000. The transfer occurred on the day prior to the applicant's admission to a nursing home where she remained until her death. Not only did the applicant fail to rebut the presumption that Medicaid eligibility was the reason for the transfer of the house but she did not show that she was entitled to the waiver as sought. A.M. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07866-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 441, Initial Decision (June 8, 2016). Ex-husband's Medicaid eligibility was properly penalized based on his having executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) which left him functionally destitute with only his own Social Security income. That said, the ex- wife was entitled to receive a larger share of the couple's assets because she had used separate assets to pay his expenses. Based on a review of the PSA provisions, the ex-husband most likely would have been entitled to receive around $ 100,000 so the penalty on his eligibility was properly based on that amount. G.K. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07759-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 456, Final Administrative Determination (June 7, 2016). Medicaid applicant failed to show that a property settlement agreement between the applicant and his now-former wife was made for adequate consideration and represented a transfer that was made solely for a purpose other than qualifying for Medicaid. Among the factors considered was the fact that the settlement agreement specifically recognized that the applicant would need to seek Medicaid benefits at some time in the future, and that acknowledgement negated the applicant's ability to show that the transfer occurred solely for some other purpose. R.W. v. Monmouth Cnty. Div. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00703-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 452, Initial Decision (June 3, 2016). Denial of a Medicaid application made by a nursing home resident who planned to transfer her home to her daughter who was claimed to be eligible for the "caregiver exemption" was reversed to the extent that it held that the transfer had to have actually occurred prior to any consideration of the exemption. The resident was entitled to offer evidence in support of the exemption even though the home had not yet been transferred to the putative caregiver. E.C. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16475-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 892, Order Reversing Initial Decision (May 26, 2016). Eligibility penalty was properly imposed on an elderly man's application for skilled nursing home Medicaid benefits based on $ 247,104 in transfers during the look-back period. Though the applicant's representative claimed that the bulk of those payments were made to compensate a woman who provided care to the applicant, the record did not include a caregiver agreement or like contract for such services nor were there invoices proving that some of the funds were used to make repairs to the residence. It thus was properly presumed that they were transfers for less than fair market value for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility. A.M. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17835-2015, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 636, Final Administrative Determination (May 26, 2016). Failure on the part of a Medicaid applicant to prove that an annuity that was purchased with the applicant's funds for the purpose of paying for the applicant's residence in a nursing home was an annuity that complied with 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(c)(1) meant that the applicant did not rebut the presumption that the funds used for that purchase were properly excluded from the resources available to the applicant for purposes of determining the applicant's eligibility for benefits. J.T. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05026-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 354, Initial Decision (May 23, 2016). Medicaid applicant on whom a penalty period was imposed on account of his transfer of over $ 92,000 for less than fair value during the look-back period was not entitled to have the penalty period commence on the date on which a prior Medicaid application had been filed. Because the applicant never appealed the denial of the earlier application, the ALJ lacked jurisdiction to consider that action and a retroactive penalty date was not properly