Page 244

Page 8 of 10 § 10:71-5.4 Includable income income on which eligibility was measured. D.F., v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05717- 17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 497, Initial Decision (July 6, 2017). County's denial of Medicaid benefits sought by a 64 year old man who was permanently disabled and was receiving Social Security disability benefits was rejected by an ALJ on findings that the county's reliance on N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.1 was incorrect because that regulation did not apply to expanded Medicaid. The applicant's monthly income, including disability benefits, was $ 1,184, which was less than the $ 1,367 ceiling under expanded Medicaid, being the standard utilized in N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4. That being so, the county erred in determining that the applicant was ineligible. M.E. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12950-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 64, Initial Decision (January 30, 2017). Agency acted properly in denying an application for Medicaid under the N.J. Family Care program based on excess household income from Social Security benefits because her gross monthly income from RSDI benefits exceeded the maximum monthly income level of $ 990 notwithstanding the fact that the applicant appeared to have extraordinarily high out-of-pocket monthly medical expenses. B.G. v. DMAHS et al., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9651-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 860, Initial Decision (October 19, 2016). Household income of a 66-year old single male exceeded the ceiling for unearned income and disqualified him for Medicaid benefits because the amount of his monthly Social Security check that was deducted to pay the premium for Medicare Part B coverage was required to be included in the determination of countable income. S.B. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08799-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 758, Initial Decision (September 12, 2016). Agency rejected an ALJ's finding that a nursing home resident was Medicaid-ineligible as of May 1, 2015 because even though her resources on that date totaled $ 719.63, well below the resource ceiling of $ 2000, her receipt later that same month of a $ 10,000 check on account of the settlement of a personal injury claim meant that she was over the resource limit for May 2015. S.Y. v. DMAHS et al., 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 913, Final Decision (June 16, 2016). "Fellowship credits" received by Medicaid recipients who resided in a facility owned by a charitable organization, which credits presumably represented the shortfalls between expenses of care for those residents and the amounts contributed by the residents, were includable income in the form of vendor payments per N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4(a)6. An ALJ erred in finding that the credits were properly classified as "in-kind support and maintenance" per N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4(a)13.ii because the facility at issue was not a residential care facility for purposes of N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4. R.W. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; P.H. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; E.K. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; R.M. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; A.N. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; C.P. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; R.T. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08809-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08810-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08817-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08818-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08819-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08820-2013; OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08821-13 (Consolidated), 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 265, Final Administrative Determination (April 20, 2016). Pension and disability benefits paid by a qualified pension plan that was governed by ERISA and that were deposited into a bona fide special needs trust established per 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396p(d)(4)(A) and governing state law were "available" to the disabled payee for purposes of determining her Medicaid eligibility because, as a matter of law, such payments could not be assigned to the special needs trust. That being so, such payments constituted "available income" that was countable in determining the payee's income for the purpose of eligibility for the Medically Needy Program. P.R. v. DMAHS and Hunterdon Cnty. Div. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05481- 12, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 766, Initial Decision (December 15, 2015). Community spouse of a nursing home resident was ineligible to receive any portion of the Social Security benefits paid to her husband and applied to his nursing home costs because she received a monthly gift of $ 3000 which, when taken with her other monthly income of $ 600, funded her independent living. Not only was there no basis for