Page 262

Page 7 of 8 § 10:71-5.6 Income eligibility standards Rewrote (c) and (d). Administrative change. See: 44 N.J.R. 1780(c). Administrative change. See: 45 N.J.R. 1917(a). Administrative change. See: 47 N.J.R. 115(b). Annotations Notes Chapter Notes Case Notes Married woman's Medicaid benefits were properly terminated because her income was properly combined with that of her husband in determining whether household income exceeded the $ 1,335 ceiling imposed for such benefits. While the woman claimed that she and her husband were estranged and had been separated for nine years, both lived at the same address and thus it was proper to calculate her eligibility based on her income and that of her husband. C.D. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 06994-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 455, Initial Decision (June 7, 2016). Denial of Medicaid eligibility based on finding that the family's monthly income of $ 4,984 exceeded the maximum determined in accordance with the living-arrangement categories outlined in the applicable regulations was proper given the undisputed facts before the administrative law judge. S.S. v. Middlesex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14747-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 599, Initial Decision (December 7, 2015). County Board of Social Services (CBSS) acted correctly when it terminated Medicaid benefits that were being received by a recipient who, with his spouse, lived with an adult daughter in a house owned by an adult son and his wife. The recipient currently received $ 1,079 monthly in Social Security benefits. Because the recipient and his wife, who had no income, lived in the household of another within the meaning of governing regulations, he was only permitted to earn $ 814.43 a month. Since his Social Security benefits exceeded that amount, the CBSS correctly terminated his Medicaid eligibility. Z.N. v. Hudson Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11891- 14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 168, Initial Decision (March 24, 2015). Because the N.J. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS) was not required to implement an income cap waiver that was approved by the federal government, an elderly woman's application for the Global Option waiver program was properly denied based on a finding that she had excess income. The income from her annuity placed it over the monthly Medicaid eligibility income cap of $ 2,130. E.M. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16475-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 823, Initial Decision (December 17, 2014). ALJ's determination that an applicant's benefits should not have been terminated on the basis that her income exceeded the ceiling for the Global Options Waiver was rejected by DMAHS on findings that governing regulations indicated that gross income, including deductions, was countable toward the eligibility standards. Even though the applicant's gross income, correctly calculated, would exceed the income ceiling only by a few dollars, there was no