Page 210

Page 40 of 40 § 10:71-4.10 Transfer of assets Transfer of petitioner's principal residence to her child, who resided with her for at least two years immediately prior to the date on which petitioner became institutionalized and who provided care to her during that time, was an exempt transfer pursuant to the caregiver child exception to the Medicaid penalty rules where the activities and the actions of petitioner's son were outside of the normal personal support activities, including preparing meals, bathing, helping her take her medication, and, most importantly, making sure she was safe by assisting her with walking and negotiating the stairs. The only evidence to the contrary was hearsay testimony from an adult protective services worker who testified as to what other workers reported; her hearsay testimony was without a residuum of competent legal evidence to support it. M.J. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 2512-07, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1317, Final Decision (June 23, 2008). Transfer of petitioner's principal residence to her child, who resided with her for at least two years immediately prior to the date on which petitioner became institutionalized and who provided care to her during that time, was an exempt transfer pursuant to the caregiver child exception to the Medicaid penalty rules where petitioner was continuously institutionalized from the time she was hospitalized and then transferred to Burlington Woods on September 20, 2005; her brief return home in December 2005 did not change the date of her designation as an institutionalized individual. M.J. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 2512-07, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1317, Final Decision (June 23, 2008). Applicant was not entitled to Medicaid assistance where she voluntarily reduced her pension income but remained able to rescind the reduction; thus, the original monthly pension benefit of $ 556.34 was available to the applicant and was properly counted in the determination of Medicaid eligibility. J.C. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 6950-07, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 39, Initial Decision (January 17, 2008). There is a clear conflict between federal law (42 U.S.C.A. 1396p(c)) and the New Jersey regulation (N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(m)) because the regulation begins the penalty period for a transfer of assets for less than fair market value with the month of the transfer, whereas federal law imposes the penalty at either the month of the transfer, the month after the transfer, or the date upon which the individual becomes eligible, whichever is later. The Division correctly applied the current federal law to petitioner's Medicaid Only application because the courts have held that states participating in a federal entitlement program must conform to federal statutes and regulations. E.B. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 2289-07, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 605, Initial Decision (August 23, 2007). Medicaid applicant's irrevocable trust arrangement was void because it violated New Jersey's public policy against shielding assets to become Medicaid eligible, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4D-6(f), and therefore the trust res was considered an available resource. Because public policy considered the trust null and void, it was as if the trust assets were available to the applicant throughout the duration of the trust and at the time of the Medicaid application made on February 8, 2006; thus, the transfer of assets did not occur until February 8, 2006, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(m)1, and the penalty period for the transfer began on that date. J.S. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 4896-06, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1054, Initial Decision (December 19, 2006). Research References & Practice Aids LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES: Saving the family home. Harold L. Grodberg, 164 N.J.L.J. 1166 (2001). NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright © 2025 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law End of Document