Page 200

Page 30 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets level care. N.K. v. Gergen County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11328-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 792, Initial Decision (December 30, 2014). Use of the proceeds of an IRA owned by a Medicaid applicant to purchase a vehicle used by her son-in-law was a transfer of assets that was subject to penalty for eligibility purposes. Since the applicant was in a nursing home in Pennsylvania in July 2009, the purchase and registration of the vehicle in Florida during July 2009 cannot be said to have been for her sole benefit, and the presumption that the amount had been transferred to qualify for Medicaid benefits was not rebutted. C.S. v. DMAHS and Cape May Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9764- 2014, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1310, Final Administrative Determination (December 23, 2014). Transfer penalty was properly imposed on an applicant based on her transfer of $ 148,081 to her son and daughter-in-law, which funds were taken from the $ 250,000 proceeds received by the applicant from a reverse mortgage. Though the applicant, who was 93 years old, suffered from dementia, and was residing with her son and daughter-in-law, claimed that the funds were transferred to compensate her family members for care they had provided to her, there was no written agreement that established the services to be rendered and the costs to be incurred thereby nor was there any other credible documentary evidence supporting the applicant's claims. At best, the applicant had a loose arrangement to compensate her family members from the proceeds of the reverse mortgage for services and care that they provided. That being so, the applicant was not entitled to relief from the transfer penalty. E.D. v. Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. and DMAHS, SERVICES, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 13364- 14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 822, Initial Decision (December 17, 2014). County board of social services acted improperly when it denied the application for an undue hardship exception made on behalf of a 96-year old woman who suffered from dementia and required 24-hour care. The record established that while the woman had inherited $ 246,371.62, it was more likely than not that the funds had been gambled away by her husband, who now was deceased. Neither the woman nor her adult children had any of the funds and the adult children were in no position to provide the care that the woman required due to her advanced age and her dementia. Denial of the waiver would deprive the woman of food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life and the harm that would come to the woman if she was to be discharged from the facility in which she resided make it clear that an undue hardship waiver was appropriately granted. M.Y. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05391-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 821, Initial Decision (December 17, 2014). Medicaid applicant failed to rebut the presumption that a substantial portion of the assets that she transferred during the "look-back" period were transferred for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid. Moreover, the applicant continued to transfer large sums of money to her children and grandchildren as her health slowly deteriorated and as she could anticipate the need for long-term care services. Thus, she was entitled to a small reduction in the penalty period based on her showing that about $ 10,000 of those funds was spent on her own living expenses and care needs. However, she was not entitled to any reduction in the penalty period due to partial returns of improperly-transferred assets because the transfer penalty may only be adjusted if all assets transferred for less than FMV have been returned. Finally, the record supports a conclusion that the Board of Social Services had incorrectly calculated the penalty in the first place because it did not use the then-current year's divisor in the calculation, an error that should be corrected on recalculation of the penalty to be based on $ 130,028.64. M.D. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 345-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 824, Initial Decision (December 15, 2014). Even though the sale of a residence in which a Medicaid applicant had a life estate was made at arm's length and for fair market value, the applicant's life estate had a value for which she received no compensation. That, and not the proceeds of the sale of the house, was the amount that was properly used to determine the amount of any penalty on the applicant's eligibility. E.S. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9477-2014, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1308, Final Administrative Determination (December 11, 2014). Administrative law judge ordered that the denial of Medicaid eligibility and application of a penalty by the Bergen County Board of Social Services be reversed. The applicant met her burden to establish by convincing evidence that assets were transferred exclusively for purposes other than Medicaid eligibility pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-