Page 196

Page 26 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets approved by an administrative law judge. While the majority of the payments made to a son who claimed that the funds were used for his mother's benefit while she was living with him, there was no rebuttal relating to payments made to petitioner's other son, who was not providing any care to his mother. A.M. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13679-2015, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 31, Initial Decision (January 26, 2016). Where an elderly Medicaid applicant appointed his adult daughter as his power of attorney (POA) and the daughter thereafter failed and refused to account for nearly $ 30,000 of funds that were presumed to be the property of the applicant, the Office of the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults (OPG) had a legal and affirmative obligation to pursue an equitable action against the daughter because the funds taken by her would be imputed to the applicant under governing law given his appointment of her as his POA. Moreover, these funds were not an "inaccessible resource" that was subject to exclusion and in fact were properly included in the excess resource penalty calculation. R.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA03644-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 816, Initial Decision (December 30, 2015). County agency did not err in determining that the penalty period imposed in connection with an elderly Medicaid claimant's eligibility was not properly reduced due to the existence of a judgment won by the Office of the Public Guardian on behalf of the claimant against his claimant's daughter, who was believed to have wrongfully retained funds belonging to her father. Even if the entire amount of the judgment was collected, which was doubtful, that sum represented only a partial return of the claimant's assets and thus did not afford a basis for any reduction per 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(2)(c). R.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03644-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 756, Initial Decision (December 30, 2015). Son of an elderly Alzheimer's patient qualified as his mother's "caregiver" within the meaning of the "Caregiver's Exemption" in governing regulations because the evidence amply established that the son provided care to his mother that included medication supervision, monitoring of her meals and nutrition, and insuring her safety, which care exceeded "normal personal support activities;" that the mother's condition required special attention and care; and that the care provided by the son was essential to his mother's health and safety. S.E. v. Bergen Cnty., Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15582-15 (On remand), 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 723, Initial Decision (December 15, 2015). Undue hardship exception to the application of a transfer penalty did not apply to a nursing home resident whose guardian was pursuing a claim against the resident's son for allegedly having taken nearly $ 300,000 of the resident's money and used it on himself and his sister. Although the resident demonstrated that the transferred assets were presently beyond her control and that she had undertaken good faith efforts to recover the assets, she did not irrefutably demonstrate that the assets cannot be recovered or that all remedies had been exhausted because the resident's guardian was currently pursuing legal proceedings against the son. J.K. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09932-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 722, Initial Decision (October 26, 2015). Medicaid applicant successfully rebutted presumption that she had transferred a total of $ 100,000 in November 2008 for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid in 2013. The transfers were made as gifts to her other adult children so as to equalize amounts that had been loaned to the daughter with whom she resided. At the time of the gifts, the applicant was still living with her daughter and she intended to live out the remainder of her life in the daughter's home, and her transfer to a nursing home occurred only because she became acutely ill several years after the transfers were made and was no longer able to reside with her daughter. M.M. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00526-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 686, Initial Decision (October 20, 2015). ALJ concluded that a board of social services should not have imposed a transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant based on expenditures equaling $ 114,917 because the applicant's family established that all such funds actually went to pay caregivers who were providing around-the-clock care to the applicant in her home, thereby rebutting the presumption that such funds were transferred for less than fair value in order to qualify the applicant for Medicaid. M.G. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07800-15 (on remand HMA 13067-14), 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 691, Initial Decision (October 5, 2015).