Page 197

Page 27 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Because title to a residence owned by an elderly nursing home residence never had been transferred to her son, N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(d)4 was inapplicable and there was no reason to consider whether care allegedly provided by the son to his mother exceeded normal personal support activities; whether her condition required special attention and care; or whether the care provided by the son was essential to the mother's health and safety and consisted of required activities. S.E. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02656-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 721, Initial Decision (August 7, 2015). Now-deceased resident of a nursing home could not be said to have had "access" to funds generated by the sale of her home, which funds were stolen by her two daughters and could not be recovered notwithstanding the valiant efforts of her grandson, with whom she had resided and who was the executor of the resident's estate. Because those funds were not "available" to the resident to apply to the cost of her care, the eligibility penalty imposed on her Medicaid benefits was properly removed. This was true even though the resident (or the grandson) did not file suit against the daughter who resided in South Carolina because both lacked resources with which to pursue litigation in a different state. K.V. v. Cape May Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 2005- 14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 392, Initial Decision (July 29, 2015). Applicant for Medicaid institutional level services was properly denied benefits on findings that he had transferred his residence to a third person, presumably retaining a life estate therein, because such a transfer was made for less than its FMV. A.M. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08483-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 425, Initial Decision (July 16, 2015). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that a penalty of two months and 12 days was properly imposed on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid was correct because applicant had transferred $ 24,034 for less than fair value during the five year look back period. Those funds were principally spent on wedding reception expenses for a granddaughter, pharmacy school tuition and graduation gifts for a granddaughter, and some traditional gifting to family members for Christmas, birthdays and similar events. Though the applicant insisted that these expenditures were consistent with her past practices and were not properly included in an eligibility penalty, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reasoned that once applicant's health took a turn for the worse and she required institutionalization, it no longer remained credible that applicant did not anticipate seeking public assistance at some point in the future. It was untenable for her to argue that she did not in part know that spending monies on her granddaughter's education or wedding or for family gifts that would in earlier times have been perfectly normal meant that she would not have funds to pay for her medical care and might thus qualify for public assistance. D.B. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 00529-15, AGENCY REF. NO.W-13781 (Slip Opinion), Initial Decision (May 18, 2015). Medicaid eligibility of an applicant was properly penalized on account of the uncompensated transfer of $ 130,945 of the applicant's funds because the applicant failed to prove that the bulk of the funds were used for the applicant's care or that, as also alleged, the remaining funds were used to care for a disabled grandchild. The grandchild, a young adult who suffered from anxiety and related conditions, was never declared to be disabled for any purpose, including for the purposes of Social Security entitlement. Moreover, the grandchild's claim that a substantial part of the funds were spent on the applicant due to the sudden onset of a disability. The state of the evidence was such that the presumption that the transfer of the funds occurred for the purpose of qualifying the applicant for Medicaid was not rebutted. That being so, the applicant's eligibility was properly subjected to a transfer penalty. A.T. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06961-2014, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 235, Initial Decision (May 4, 2015). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rejected a claim by DMAHS that an applicant for Medicaid was properly subjected to a four month, fourteen-day penalty on her benefits by reason of her transfer, during the look-back period, of $ 41,775.97. The largest expenditures that were included in that amount were two checks of $ 15,000 each which, it was undisputed, were gifts to assist two granddaughters in paying for their weddings. The ALJ concluded that the contributions to the weddings were the acts of a normal, affectionate grandparent and were not gifts representing a concerted effort by the applicant to pauperize herself. They were not gifts without a purpose made only for love and affection. Rather, they were made in the ordinary course of living a normal human life. The applicant was not