Page 202

Page 32 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16307-2013, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1306, Final Administrative Determination (October 16, 2014). Though funds expended by a Medicaid applicant for expenses of her daughter, who was also disabled and a benefit recipient, were not considered a transfer of assets under governing law, the applicant failed to account for $ 13,217 and that amount was properly used as the basis for a transfer penalty. J.S. v. DMAHS and Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9106-2013, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1298, Final Administrative Determination (September 25, 2014). Medicaid applicant failed to establish that she received FMV for transfers made to her son and daughter-in-law for her life interest in her home or for renovations thereon. H.D. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv. and the Division of Med. Assistance and Health Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 3495-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 921, Final Decision (September 5, 2014). Administrative law judge (ALJ) modified the penalty period imposed upon a Medicaid applicant. It was an unauthorized transfer of assets pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(e) to spend the applicant's funds so that her grandson could attend private schools when those funds were needed for the applicant's own institutional care needs. However, the ALJ found that certain transfers were made to help the applicant's family with usual financial problems and were not made with the intent, even partially, to qualify for Medicaid and thus were exempt transfers. A.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04663-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 531, Initial Decision (August 29, 2014). Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and Camden County Board of Social Services properly imposed a transfer penalty on a Medicaid applicant arising from transfers to her daughter during the sixty-month look back period. Although the daughter's testimony was quite earnest, the administrative law judge concluded that she did not rebut the presumption that these assets were transferred solely for some other purpose than to establish Medicaid eligibility. Although she provided copies of bills and pictures of her renovated home, the bills were all prior to 2006, and the transfers occurred during the sixty-month look back. S.B. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv. and Div. of Med. Assistance Health Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 6303-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 516, Initial Decision (August 27, 2014). Decision of an ALJ that a Medicaid applicant's transfer of her home to her daughter was for less than market value and supported imposition of a penalty was sustained because the facts did not support application of the "caregiver" exception to the fair market value transfer rule. M.K. v. DMAHS and Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 8099-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 913, Final Administrative Determination (August 25, 2014). County board of social services (CBSS) acted improperly when, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a), it imposed a one month, nine day penalty on the eligibility of a Medicaid applicant on account of what the CBSS claimed was an uncompensated transfer of assets. The assets at issue were funds belonging to the applicant which were used by the applicant's daughter to repair smoke damage caused by the applicant, a heavy smoker, to a condominium that the applicant had rented from the daughter. Because it was shown that the assets were not transferred to establish Medicaid eligibility but in fact were transferred exclusively to fund repairs for which the applicant was legally liable under a lease, the applicant's eligibility was not properly subjected to a penalty. R.M. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 7521-14, AGENCY DKT. NO. 0315002712, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 492, Initial Decision (August 18, 2014). County board of social services (CBSS) acted improperly when, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a), it penalized the eligibility of a Medicaid applicant on account of what the CBSS claimed to be transfers of funds for which no accounting had been made. One transfer, for $ 5000, was shown to have been used to install a chairlift in the home of the applicant's son, where the applicant lived and received care from her son. Given that showing, the applicant's eligibility should not have been penalized on account thereof. However, there was no documentation submitted to establish the purpose for which the second transfer, a $ 2,500 check, was made, and a ten-day penalty against the