Page 199

Page 29 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets However, the amount transferred was reduced by several items that the administrative law judge found to have been adequately explained, with the result that the penalty that was originally imposed, which was two months and 29 days, was reduced to two months and 17 days. J.C. v. DMAHS and Atlantic Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13872-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 209, Initial Decision (February 12, 2015). Transfer penalty of two months and two days on a Medicaid applicant's benefits was properly imposed on account of transfers made from the applicant's accounts to various members of her family, which transfers were found to have been made for less than fair market value during the sixty-month look back period. Though some of the payments that originally were included in the gross amount of transfers on which a penalty was imposed, the applicant's daughter did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the remaining payments, which totaled $ 16,200, were made for less than fair market value to qualify for Medicaid. C.M. v. Burlington Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11783-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 113, Initial Decision (February 11, 2015). Determination by a county board of social services (CBSS) that an applicant's Medicaid eligibility was properly penalized based on transfers totaling $ 114,917 was rejected by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who concluded that the applicant had rebutted the presumption that such transfers were made to establish Medicaid eligibility. The applicant, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2006, had lived at home with round-the-clock care for some seven years before she became a nursing home resident. Though the applicant's family had demonstrated that the applicant had paid $ 500 weekly for her in-home care over those years, the agency had rejected the applicant's claims that the payments had not been made to establish eligibility and had imposed a penalty of 14 months and 22 days. The ALJ found that while there was no written contract between the caregiver and the family, the weekly payments were regular and consistent and there was no question that the caregiver was employed by the family to care for the applicant. The documentation from the applicant's doctors regarding her need for live-in assistance was credible and undisputed. That being so, the assets at issue were not more than the fair market value of the services provided by the caregiver and the agency should not have based a penalty thereon. M.G. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13067-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 207, Initial Decision (February 3, 2015). County agency acted properly in imposing a transfer penalty period upon an applicant on a finding that he had transferred $ 17,266.24 in resources for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility. The first challenged transfer occurred soon after the applicant's son, his caregiver, learned about Medicaid's financial eligibility requirements. The first transfer ostensibly represented amounts that were owed to the son on account of care that he had rendered in his home to his father and to his recently-deceased mother, and was made shortly after his mother's death. The son admitted that the second transfer was made for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility for his father. Given the lack of any evidence that the transfers were made for any other purpose, the agency's determination that they were made to establish eligibility was amply supported by the record. J.B. v. Morris Cty. Office of Temp. Assistance, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12835-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 122, Initial Decision (January 29, 2015). Applicant failed to rebut the presumption that the transfer of assets for a home repair and renovation project was for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(j). The credible evidence established that the applicant would not be returning home from the nursing home facility to live in the refurbished home. In fact, her disability was severe enough that her son lived with her and served as her caregiver for at least two years before her institutionalization. M.A.M. v. Morris County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13089- 14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 38, Initial Decision (January 20, 2015). Medicaid applicant successfully rebutted the presumption that certain assets subject to a transfer penalty were transferred for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(j). She employed a live-in for the benefit of her husband, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, and paid for those services by writing checks payable to "cash." The applicant utilized the balance of the transferred funds to support herself and the household, and the administrative law judge found that this amount was both reasonable and credible. Thus, the transfer penalty was reversed and the applicant was deemed eligible for the Medicaid Only Program for institutional