Page 198

Page 28 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets properly penalized for making such contributions just because she was old. Similar logic applied to the two $ 1000 checks that were given to the same relatives as wedding presents. The regulations create a presumption that all transfers for less than fair market value were made to establish Medicaid eligibility, but that presumption can be rebutted, and the ALJ found that it had been rebutted in this case. Once the amounts as to which the presumption had been rebutted were subtracted from the total amount on which the penalty was based, the total amount of unexplained expenditures was $ 3600 and justified the imposition of an 11-day penalty. F.P. v. Atlantic Cty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17211-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 265, Initial Decision (April 30, 2015) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with DMAHS that an applicant for Medicaid was properly subjected to a ten month penalty on her benefits by reason of her transfer, during the look-back period, of $ 78,000. By the time of the hearing, the applicant was deceased, but her son, on behalf of the estate, claimed that the $ 78,000 reflected six gifts of $ 13,000 each that she had made to family members purportedly to pay for her granddaughter's wedding and her grandchildren's college expenses and that at the time such gifts were made, the applicant was living wholly independently and that Medicaid eligibility was not a consideration at the time the gifts were made. However, there was no supporting evidence because none of the payments was made directly for wedding expenses or to a college or university. Rather, each check was made out for $ 13,000 without any indication of how the applicant intended for it to be spent. Each check was simply a gift in accordance with the maximum allowed without penalty under the tax laws. Since the gifts were properly considered to be transfers for "love and affection," such transfers reflected funds that could have been used for the applicant's care and a penalty was properly imposed on account thereof. M.V. v. DMAHS and Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15653-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 263, Initial Decision (April 20, 2015). A transfer penalty of 12 months and 21 days was properly imposed on the Medicaid eligibility of an applicant who was found to have transferred $ 119,580 for less than fair market value during the relevant look-back period. Though the applicant's representative, her daughter, insisted that the majority of the transfers should not have been included in the penalty amount, the daughter had no documentation establishing that the funds were used for the purposes that the daughter had identified and she thus failed to rebut the presumption that the funds were transferred exclusively for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid. J.M. v. Bergen Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07591-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 259, Initial Decision (April 8, 2015). Decision of a county Board of Social Services (CBSS) imposing a $ 127,751.71 transfer penalty due to uncompensated transfers within the look-back period upon the Medicaid eligibility of a 91 year old woman was modified in part based on evidence relative to the use of a substantial portion of those funds for the applicant's care. The undisputed evidence established that $ 60,000 was returned to the applicant and $ 53,360.92 was used exclusively for her care. That meant that the transfer penalty was properly reduced by the amount shown to have been legitimate payments for the applicant's care. M.M. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9251-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 155, Initial Decision (March 9, 2015). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that a 42-day transfer penalty was properly imposed on the eligibility of an applicant for Medicaid was incorrect because the preponderance of the credible evidence showed that the applicant's daughter, who was generally responsible for her care, made some of the challenged transfers for a reason other than to qualify for Medicaid eligibility. Because the daughter convincingly rebutted the presumption that the transfers were made to establish Medicaid eligibility, the transfers on which a penalty was properly imposed totaled $ 12,437.33. B.J.H. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13823-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 208, Initial Decision (February 13, 2015). County Board of Social Services (CBSS) correctly imposed a penalty on an applicant's Medicaid eligibility based on her having transferred a large sum of money for less than fair market value within the five-year look back period. The source of the funds at issue was an amount that the applicant inherited from her sister. Though the applicant was the sole beneficiary of the sister's estate, the applicant believed that it was fair to share it with other relatives, and somewhat more than $ 20,000 was either distributed to other relatives or used for other non-exempt purposes. The amount of the funds that the applicant distributed to other relatives was the basis of the eligibility penalty.