Page 208

Page 38 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets She mistakenly believed that the she was permitted to transfer her CSRA assets after that amount was calculated at the time of institutionalization but before eligibility was determined at the time of application. Poong Cha v. Morris County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. No. HMA 00267-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 141, Initial Decision (March 31, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that a direct transfer of $ 430,183.52 made by a 95-year-old parent who was a Medicaid recipient to the parent's totally disabled adult child came within an exception to the rule in 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(c)(1) and N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) generally requiring the imposition of a "transfer penalty" on the Medicaid recipient who made such a transfer. That was because the transfer met the criteria in § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(iii) and a determination that the challenged transfer did not trigger the penalty was also consistent with prior rulings of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services. M.C. v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs. & Union Cnty. Div. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 08967-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. 2010050139-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 95, Initial Decision (February 10, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Bergen County Board of Social Services erred when, relying on N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.5(b)3, it denied a Medicaid application filed by an elderly husband (Husband) and imposed a transfer penalty of 17 months and 20 days, making Husband's eligibility date September 21, 2014, based on its finding that the assets represented by three certificate of deposit (CDs) accounts titled to his wife (Wife) and Wife's sister (Sister) constituted resources within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.6 that were "available" to Husband within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(c) and could be converted to cash and used for the Husband's support and maintenance. Wife and Sister's submission on that issue, which included a statement from the financial institution where the accounts were held, established that the funds used to obtain the CDs were owned in toto by Sister, who was elderly, had no children, and lived alone; and that Sister's intention, in titling the accounts as she did, was to assure that Wife would have access to the funds in the event that Sister became incapacitated or to pay for her funeral expenses. Because the submission met the standards in N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(o)3 and established that the funds were not a resource of Husband, the ALJ concluded that there was no basis for the imposition of a transfer penalty. W.Z. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 16767-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. 021016511201, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 99, Initial Decision (February 7, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge concluded that the determination of two agencies (the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and the Union County Board of Social Services) in imposing a N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10 transfer penalty on an elderly Medicaid recipient on account of her transfer, to two relatives, of compensation for care that they rendered to her, which compensation was calculated based on an hourly rate of $ 25. Though both of the relatives had some relevant expertise, neither was a licensed home health care provider and thus should not have been paid at a rate exceeding the Department of Labor rate for unlicensed care, which was $ 10.10. E.H. v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs. & the Union Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 09604-13, Case No. 2010049231-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 96, Initial Decision (January 28, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that a direct transfer of $ 430,183.52 made by a 95 year old parent who was a Medicaid recipient to the parent's totally disabled adult child came within an exception to the rule in 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(c)(1) and N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) generally requiring the imposition of a "transfer penalty" on the Medicaid recipient who made such a transfer. That was because the transfer met the criteria in § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(iii) and a determination that the challenged transfer did not trigger the penalty was also consistent with prior rulings of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services. M.C. v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs. & Union Cnty. Div. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 08967-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. 2010050139-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 95, Initial Decision (February 10, 2014). Medicaid applicant was subject to a penalty due to an improper transfer of assets and that penalty could not be reduced pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(c)(2)(C) and N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(e)6. Only a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home that the applicant gave to her nephews was returned. C.C. v. Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv. And Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. No. HMA 4752-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 93, Initial Decision (February 12, 2014).