Page 24

Page 2 of 14 § 10:71-2.2 Responsibilities in the application process See: 27 N.J.R. 3543(a), 27 N.J.R. 5046(a). Amended by R.2000 d.415, effective October 16, 2000. See: 32 N.J.R. 2565(a), 32 N.J.R. 3844(a). Substituted "CBOSS" for "CWA" throughout. Amended by R.2012 d.025, effective February 6, 2012. See: 43 N.J.R. 804(a), 44 N.J.R. 230(a). Substituted "CWAs" for "CBOSSs" and "CWA" for "CBOSS" throughout; in (a), substituted "that" for "which"; in (c)4, inserted "and" at the end; in (c)5, substituted a period for a semicolon at the end; recodified former (c)6 as (d) and former (d) as (e); and in (e)2, substituted "his or her" for "his/her" and inserted "and" at the end. Annotations Notes Chapter Notes Case Notes Final agency decision properly affirmed the imposition of a transfer penalty upon a claimant's application for Medicaid benefits to pay for the cost of her nursing home care because a life care contract between herself and her daughter made as a lump sum advance payment to the daughter was not a transfer for fair market value. E.S. v. Division of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 412 N.J. Super. 340, 990 A.2d 701, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 47 (2010). Medicaid application made on behalf of a divorced wife was properly denied for failure to provide verification of information relative to her assets and financial transactions. Specifically, the applicant failed to submit documentation confirming her claims relative to several large disbursements including $ 5000 that allegedly was spent to repair her kitchen, $ 1000 that allegedly was spent to repair her bathroom, and various amounts that were claimed to have been lost in a scam. Moreover, because the applicant claimed to have sent funds to her ex- husband's attorney in connection with the couple's divorce but did not substantiate that expense, the applicant did not carry her burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer was made for establish Medicaid eligibility. F.R. v. Monmouth Cty. Div. of Soc. Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07300-23, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 112, Initial Decision (January 16, 2024). Authorized representative of an applicant for Medicaid benefits failed to show that either the applicant's death, which occurred while the application was pending, or the death of her caseworker was the cause of the representative's failure to obtain and submit documentation requested in connection with the application. That was because much of the requested documentation that was still outstanding at the time of the denial of the application, from which this appeal was taken, was either requested while the applicant was still alive or was within the control of either the representative or the applicant's granddaughter. Thus, no exceptional circumstances existed justifying additional time to provide the requested documentation. E.W. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03229-2021, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 421, Final Agency Determination (October 26, 2021). Where the applicant's Designated Authorized Representative (DAR) repeatedly failed to provide the requested documentation to determine eligibility, the Medicaid application was appropriately denied. The DAR and the applicant's spouse had 182 days from the first verification letter to the deadline set forth in the last verification letter to request, receive, and submit the information. The DAR's failure to timely request the documentation regarding