Page 205

Page 35 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Assistance and health Serv. and Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 4146-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 383, Initial Decision (June 30, 2014). Denial of an 82-year old woman's application for Global Options (GO) Medicaid was appropriate. The applicant previously was receiving $ 2,055 a month from her husband under a Limited Judgment of Divorce from Bed and Board, which payment was claimed to be the applicant's share of the ratable portion of a former marital asset, not alimony. Prior to making the GO Medicaid application, however, the applicant applied for and was awarded a consent order decreasing the $ 2,055 monthly payment to $ 1,500. Though an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with the applicant that those payments did not constitute alimony, she also concluded that they were not excludable as income under any provision of N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.3. Moreover, because the applicant's action to reduce the payments was admittedly taken to enable the applicant to remain in an assisted living setting, the facts triggered the application of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(b)3. That is, her monthly income would be deemed to include the entire $ 2,055 rather than the reduced amount because the reduction was a result of action on the part of the applicant to meet eligibility guidelines. G.D. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs. & DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 2840-14, AGENCY DKT. NO. 0310031084, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 361, Initial Decision (June 20, 2014). A county board of social services (CBSS) acted properly in denying Medicaid eligibility to a husband who was already a resident of a care center because the husband, who bore the burden of proof per N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(j), did not establish that sufficient verification of spend-down had been provided to CBSS. Moreover, the couple's resource assessment as determined per the criteria in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.8(a) indicated total resources of $ 414,458.15, far in excess of the maximum for the husband, which was $ 211,229. R.K. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16823-13, AGENCY DKT. NO. 0310030815, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 341, Initial Decision (June 18, 2014). DMAHS properly denied an application for the Medicaid Only/Community Care Waiver program made on behalf of a disabled adult on the ground that the adult had excess resources and that significant assets had been transferred within 6 months of the application. Leaving aside other assets on which evidence was received, the adult had nearly $ 50,000 in a trust account on the date of the application and thus her resources exceeded the $ 2,000 ceiling in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5(c). Second, as for the transfers, which included a transfer of a condominium and transfers in the amounts of $ 52,863.39 and $ 46,108.86, per N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(l)1, the determination of whether the transfer was made to qualify for Medicaid does not include a consideration of the merits of the transfer, but whether the applicant has proven that the asset was transferred exclusively for some other purpose, the only circumstance in which presumption is successfully rebutted. In the absence of evidence rebutting that presumption, the existence of such transfers afforded grounds for denial of the application. S.M. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11842-12, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 338, Initial Decision (June 20, 2014). Board of Social Services' delay in processing a Medicaid application was not improper under N.J.A.C. 10:71- 2.3(c). Throughout the 21 months between the filing of initial application and its amended disposition, the information, including duplicates, was supplied on several occasions in response to the verifications sought. A transfer penalty was properly assessed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(i) arising from the transfer to her niece of the applicant's interest in a limited liability company that owned her home in exchange for a promissory note. While it was undisputed that the niece took the applicant into her home, sound proof did not exist concerning that arrangement. The fair market value documents did not provide an adequate market analysis of the home because they primarily reflected later values, and they clearly stated that the figures are not guaranteed. E.B. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 667-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 327, Initial Decision (June 9, 2014). ALJ properly imposed a 6 month, 12 day transfer penalty on the Medicaid eligibility of a 92-year-old man who was found to have transferred, for less than fair value, $ 50,000 to his daughter during the relevant look-back period. Though the daughter claimed that the applicant had directed her to purchase a home that would accommodate him in the event he went to live with her and that she had done so, there was no evidence that the applicant ever resided there, that he had ever held title thereto or that he received any equity interest in the property. T.O. v. DMAHS and Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA17940-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 899, Final Administrative Determination (June 3, 2014).