Page 31

Page 9 of 14 § 10:71-2.2 Responsibilities in the application process Assistance & Health Services and Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 20582-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 156, Initial Decision (March 28, 2016). Because a county board of social services was entitled to establish a cut-off date for submission, by an applicant, of information requested by the board and needed to determine whether the applicant was eligible for Medicaid, the determination that the applicant had failed to submit needed materials was properly affirmed. While a county board had the option to afford additional time to an applicant, it nonetheless was entitled to determine when sufficient time was allowed and to make a decision based on the information in its possession on the deadline. N.V. v. DMAHS and Gloucester Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.,OAL DKT. NO. HMA 01201-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 140, Initial Decision (March 17, 2016). County board of social services did not comply with required deadlines in governing regulations when it considered whether a petitioner's eligibility for "Medicaid Only" Institutional Medicaid, with the result that the eligibility date of July 1, 2015 that was granted by the board was incorrect and the petitioner was entitled to an eligibility date of May 1, 2015. Among other failures, the board did not comply with its duty to write to the petitioner and explain the reasons for delay and failed to inform the petitioner of the need for a Qualified Income Trust (QIT) in a timely manner. Because the manner in which the board processed the application was improper, an earlier eligibility date was appropriately granted. J.E., Petitioner, v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15778-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 120, Initial Decision (March 10, 2016). County social services board was justified in denying an application for Medicaid on the ground that the applicant had failed to provide verification of resources per governing regulations. The board gave the applicant more than two months to provide closing statements from certain investment accounts. On these facts, the board took reasonable steps and gave adequate time for the applicant to submit the required verification. M.B. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14682-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 758, Initial Decision (December 22, 2015). Failure on the part of an applicant seeking Medicaid benefits for the Adult Medicaid Nursing Home program to submit required documentation and to otherwise cooperate with the agency in determining eligibility justified the agency in denying the application, which denial was sustained following a fair hearing. Though the facility in which the applicant resided claimed to have submitted the requested documents via facsimile, the facility offered no substantiation such as a fax transmittal confirmation. Because the requested documents were not submitted until the day of the hearing, which was well after they were required to be submitted, the agency's denial of the application was properly approved. A.B. v. Essex Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03840-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 234, Initial Decision (May 4, 2015). Medicaid eligibility of a recipient was properly terminated on a finding that an absent parent of the recipient's younger minor child in fact lived with the recipient notwithstanding the recipient's denial that the absent parent in fact resided with her and two children. The recipient's testimony relative to where the absent parent was living was unworthy of belief in the face of other evidence that established that the recipient in fact currently was in a romantic relationship with the absent parent and that the latter's last known address was that at which the recipient currently resided. Nor had the recipient provided the agency with adequate information establishing that the absent parent in fact resided elsewhere. K.B. v. Gloucester Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02927-15, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 233, Initial Decision (April 30, 2015). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that an applicant was eligible for Medicaid and that denial of his application was improper. The grounds for the denial was that the agency was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation that numerous $ 9000 deposits made into his checking account reflected cash that he had squirreled away over many years. The agency believed that the funds had been derived from other assets that had not been adequately disclosed. However, the applicant's testimony relative to the source of the funds was fully corroborated by the former executive director of an assisted living complex in which the applicant had resided, who testified that she had first-hand knowledge that the applicant had nearly $ 80,000 in cash, funds that he had retained in cash because he did not trust banks. Because the corroboration of the source of funds that was required by the