Page 270

Page 7 of 9 § 10:71-5.7 Post-eligibility treatment of income; institutionalized individuals was financial duress, no basis for an increase in her monthly allotment was shown. I.L. v. Bergen Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03796-15 (Slip Opinion), Initial Decision (May 13, 2015). Husband of a medically-needy spouse who was residing in an institutional setting was not entitled to an increase in his spousal allowance from $ 1,280.47 to $ 1,880.47 because the husband did not demonstrate by competent evidence that his monthly income justified a change to his allowance. The facts and financial data clearly demonstrated that the husband's income, which already included a spousal allowance, was sufficient to meet his current monthly living expenses. Though the husband expressed concern that he would be unable to fund capital- type maintenance of his home, which was an older dwelling, if the same became necessary, the husband did not show that he needed to undertake those kinds of expenditures at this time. S.M. v. DMAHS and Atlantic Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9749-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 128, Initial Decision (January 28, 2015). Community spouse was entitled to retain the couple's excess resources when the institutionalized spouse's income and the income generated from the community spouse's share of the couple resources was insufficient to provide the maximum authorized level. By allowing the community spouse to keep the excess resources, he had no excess resources and was therefore eligible for Medicaid. E.C. v. Union County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12002-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 3, Initial Decision (January 2, 2015). Spouse of a terminally ill husband met the "exceptional circumstances" standard of proof and was entitled to an increased Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance equal to her spouse's net income after deduction for his personal-needs allowance, his medical insurance premiums, and any funds already paid to the spouse. "Exceptional circumstances" resulting in financial duress pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396r-5(e)(2)(B) and cognate state law included the substantial debt she had already incurred to care for her husband and for her now-deceased minor child, who died from the same disease that now afflicted her husband, the fact that the facility in which her husband lived (and where he now was receiving hospice care) was suing her for $ 63,000, her limited earning opportunities, her own medical and dental problems. Under these circumstances, the amount otherwise allocable to the spouse as the "community spouse resource allowance" was demonstrably insufficient. R.L.W. v. DMAHS and Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 8511-10, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 825, Initial Decision (December 15, 2014). Medicaid recipient did not establish that the expenses reasonably incurred by the community spouse were so out of the ordinary that they constituted exceptional circumstances resulting in financial duress within the meaning of governing regulations justifying an increase in the community spouse's monthly allowance. A.T. v. DMAHS and Warren Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 05632-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1230, Final Administrative Determination (November 10, 2014). Community spouse maintenance calculation was affirmed. The argument for exceptional circumstances resulting in the need for a higher amount under N.J.A.C. 10:71-5.7(e) was not proven. It was undisputed that the community spouse suffered from multiple sclerosis and that there were some extra expenses associated with that condition. However, it was not unexpected that a community spouse would have expenses beyond shelter expenses, and the record fell short of identifying any of those expenses as extraordinary. It was likewise not unexpected that a community spouse residing in a single family home might not be able to perform maintenance or repairs and would incur home maintenance expenses. The record did not reflect that the community spouse's expenses exceeded her income or that any of the expenses incurred were extraordinary, and a medical condition alone was not dispositive of financial duress. T.K. V. Bergen County Bd. of Social Serv., 3 OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08533-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 595, Initial Decision (October 29, 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 flexibility to grant benefits to an applicant whose income exceeded the ceiling no matter how slight the amount of