Page 207

Page 37 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets penalty period, not the nineteen month and fifteen day period that the agency originally had imposed. A.D. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 2670-14, AGENCY REF. NO. 2010048756, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 259, Initial Decision (May 19, 2014). No transfer penalty should have been applied by a county board of social services upon the Medicaid eligibility of an elderly woman (now deceased) because her daughter was properly compensated for services rendered to her mother under a personal services contract. The evidence established that the daughter provided services in excess of 20 hours a day because her mother, who had Alzheimer's disease, required constant supervision, and that those services were provided at fair market value. That being so, there was no basis for imposition of the transfer penalty described in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10. E.B. v. DMAHS and Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 2809-14, ON REMAND HMA 12812-13, AGENCY DKT. NO. 0610096253, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 245, Initial Decision (May 28, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that an elderly woman's January 2011 transfer, to her daughter, of the woman's home was a transfer for less than market value within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10 and provided grounds for the imposition of a penalty of 25 months and 3 days against the elderly woman's Medicaid entitlement, meaning that her eligibility date would be February 3, 2014. Nor did the "caregiver" exception to the fair market rule apply. That was because the evidence showed that the elderly woman needed an institutional level of care as of March 2011, and that the elderly woman was not residing with the daughter for that entire period nor was the daughter her mother's caregiver for a full two years prior to March 2011. M.K. v. DMAHS and Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 8099-13 (On remand HMA 5791-12), 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 243, Initial Decision (May 30, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that a county board of social services had acted lawfully when it had imposed a penalty of ten months and 13 days against an elderly woman's Medicaid eligibility by reason of three transfers made from the woman's checking account to her grandson within the 60 month "look-back period" in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10. Though the grandson had claimed that the largest of the three transfers - which was for $ 75,000 - was repayment of a loan that he made to his grandmother, there was no documentary evidence whatsoever that such was the case and the surrounding facts and circumstances strongly suggested that the grandson's claim was untrue. As for the other payments, claimed by the grandson to represent compensation for care that he rendered to his grandmother, the presumption that such services would have been provided without compensation was not rebutted. E.M. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15670-13, AGENCY DKT. NO. 021516716501, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 237, Initial Decision (May 30, 2014). Transfer penalty incurred pursuant N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) was reduced when documented medical expenses and legal bills paid by the sister of a Medicaid were legitimate reimbursements of expenses paid for solely for the applicant's health and wellbeing and not in anticipation of Medicaid eligibility. Had the applicant paid the legal bills directly, even if for legal advice regarding Medicaid planning, they would not have been included transfer/penalty analysis. D.P. v. Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. No. HMA 1080-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 209, Initial Decision (April 29, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge concluded that a 15 day eligibility penalty provided by N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10 should not have been imposed upon an applicant for benefits under the Medically Needy Nursing Home Program. The penalty was based on the agency's finding that she had transferred resources valued at $ 4000 to a caretaker. The caretaker, who actually was a member of the applicant's church who was providing her with care through a church program, testified that the applicant had loaned her $ 4000 but that she in fact had repaid $ 2,000 of that amount. Since that amount had been repaid, it should not have been characterized as a transfer for less than fair market value and the agency was properly required to recalculate the penalty based on a transfer of $ 2,000. J.O. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 16304-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 169, Initial Decision (April 4, 2014). Spouse's transfers to her children and grandchildren of a portion of her Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA) for less than fair market value did not result in a penalty period because she rebutted the presumption that the resource was transferred to establish Medicaid eligibility for her husband pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(l)1.