Page 245

Page 9 of 10 § 10:71-5.4 Includable income excluding the gift from the community spouse's income for the purpose of assessing her needs but there was no proof of exceptional circumstances justifying allocation, to the community spouse, of some part of the nursing home resident's Social Security benefits. T.D. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03009-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 390, Initial Decision (June 25, 2015). Administrative law judge affirmed the termination of a recipient's Community Medicaid Benefits under the Medically Needy program due to excessive income. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4(a)3, the Medicare Part B premium deducted from the recipient's Social Security benefits was properly counted as income. In addition, the Medicare Part B reimbursement constituted a "retirement benefit" within the contemplation of N.J.A.C. 10:71- 5.4(a)3, and, accordingly, was properly counted as unearned income. R.C. v. Somerset County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA09655-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 597, Initial Decision (October 14, 2014). ALJ properly concluded that a Medicaid applicant was ineligible for benefits because her Social Security income and VA benefits both were countable income and her countable income exceeded the eligibility limit. A.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 03619-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 908, Final Administrative Determination (August 3, 2014). Recipient was ineligible for Medicaid at the time of her redetermination and thus the termination of her benefit by the Morris County Department of Human Services was affirmed. Because her Social Security income and VA benefits were countable income pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4(a), her countable income exceeded the eligibility limit. A.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 03619-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 313, Initial Decision (July 3, 2014). Morris County Board of Social Services (Agency) improperly terminated a disabled individual's participation in the Global Options Community Program on the ground that her income exceeded the maximum eligibility standard. N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4 accounted for pensions on the basis of "payment received" rather than "gross income." Thus, the Agency overstated the individual's pension by the amount of the deductions withheld. A.D. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 18804-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 256, Initial Decision (May 7, 2014). Atlantic County Department of Family and Community Development (CWA) improperly determined that an individual with a lifetime history of mental illness was no longer eligible for Medicaid benefits. The individual resided with his father, who provided all room and board expenses, and did not pay rent or room or board to his father. The CWA misapplied N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4 to include the in kind support received from the individual's father with his income, which would have made his total income in excess of the maximum allowable threshold. The administrative law judge concluded that because the individual did not purchase room or board separately, the in-kind support described by both the individual and the CWA could not be designated as includable income. B.B. v. Atlantic County Dep't. of Family and Cmty. Dev., OAL DKT. No. HMA 1381-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 147, Initial Decision (March 31, 2014). Determination by a county board of social services imposing a penalty period of five months and 17 days before a 97-year-old woman could receive Medicaid Only benefits based on a finding that $ 479 in monthly income was properly imputed to her by reason of her life estate in a family home was reversed because the governing regulations, including N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.4(a) and N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.2(b)1, did not authorize the board to find that the applicant could obtain rental income from a life estate or that such theoretical rental income must be or could be counted as "available income" within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.1(b)1. Given that such an interpretation of existing rules would have a significant impact upon the public at large and given the need for uniformity throughout the state, the status of such theoretical rental income was properly the subject of formal rule-making in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq. H.S. v. DMAHS and Atlantic Cty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. NO. HMA 10450-12, 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 12, Initial Decision (January 23, 2013). Under what were described as "unique circumstances," DMAHS adopted the decision of an Administrative Law Judge finding that an amount equal to the prevailing rent for a house that was owned by a Medicaid recipient and occupied by one of her sons was not includable in the recipient's countable income for the purposes of calculating