Page 209

Page 39 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Bergen County Board of Social Services did not err in imposing a penalty under N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(c) arising from unaccounted transfers after an application for Medicaid was filed on behalf of an elderly woman (applicant). The applicant did not sustain her burden in proving that transfers used to make reverse-mortgage payments were made not circumvent Medicaid eligibility. There was no sound proof that the payment of the mortgage would make the home salvageable for the family because the property was on the market, and it was evident that the applicant would not return to the residence due to her deteriorating health. The timing of the transfer of the home to her son in relation to one month later applying for institutional Medicaid questioned the soundness of the conveyance. L.M. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 18618-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 53, Initial Decision (March 10, 2014). Administrative law judge recommended the affirmation of a penalty imposed on an applicant's Medicaid eligibility pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10-71-4.10(c). She transferred her share of the proceeds from the sale of her house to her son one year and three days prior to the date of her application., which was during the lookback period. Thus, those funds must be included when calculating her assets. The funds were expended to build an addition on her son's home, which created a gift from the applicant to her son that warranted a penalty. T.W. v. Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 13126-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 51, Initial Decision (March 6, 2014). Camden County Board of Social Services and the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services incorrectly denied Medicaid eligibility to applicants pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.5 and assessed a transfer penalty based upon the sale of their home within five years before applying for Medicaid pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(a) and - 4.10(b)9iv. The last tax assessment for the applicants' home was done before the decline of the housing market, and by the date of the transfer, the property was outdated, had termite and structural damage, and needed substantial renovation. W.S. v. Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv. and Camden Cnty. Bd. Of Social Serv., J.S. v. Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Serv. and Camden Cnty. Bd. Of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. Nos. HMA 10521-13, HMA 10523-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50, Initial Decision (March 6, 2014). Penalty for transfer of resources during the "look back" period should not have applied to petitioner because, although she transferred $ 50,000 in 2006, the gifts were not made for the purpose of establishing Medicaid eligibility; rather, the record revealed that petitioner sustained a traumatic onset of disability approximately two years after giving the gifts to her two daughters. M.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 13911-08, 2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 670, Final Decision (August 24, 2009). Petitioner was subject to a transfer penalty since petitioner's nephew did not meet the transfer exception for a home conveyed to a son or daughter who staved off institutionalization by at least two years. Congress clearly only applied exceptions to the penalty when the transfer was to a son or daughter who resided in the home for at least two years and provided care to the applicant, and there was no room for an interpretation that would lend itself to expand the exemption to other relatives. V.D. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 4044-08, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1111, Final Decision (December 9, 2008). Initial Decision (2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1405) adopted, which found that Medicaid applicants' prepayment of a large sum of money, pursuant to Life Care Contracts, to family members for personal-care services to be performed in the future constituted a transfer of assets for less than fair market value, subjecting the applicants to the imposition of a penalty period. C.S. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 1036-08, HMA 1122-08 and HMA 3499-08, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1428, Final Decision (December 4, 2008). Penalty period imposed by federal law (42 U.S.C.A. 1396p(c)(1)(D)), effective Feb. 8, 2006, and not that imposed by prior law, applied to institutionalized Medicaid applicant's gift transfers because sufficient funds to cover the gift checks, allegedly written before Feb. 8, 2006, were not in the account on which the checks were drawn until Feb. 13, 2006; thus, the penalty period expired Sept. 15, 2008, rather than Nov. 1, 2007, despite petitioner's contention that another bank's alleged delay in liquidating CDs to cover the checks rendered the funds outside her control. M.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 929-08, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1017, Final Decision (July 18, 2008).