Page 33

Page 11 of 14 § 10:71-2.2 Responsibilities in the application process exempted from the requirement of a spousal resource assessment. Such a waiver was properly found here, where the applicant and her spouse had been formally separated since 2004. Other facts that were relevant to the determination included that while the spouse had repeatedly promised to provide such records, he had failed to do so and in fact had asserted that he was not subject to court orders requiring him to submit financial records in connection with the applicant's divorce petition; that the husband had been unfailingly recalcitrant and decidedly deceptive in his dealings with the applicant and the court; and that the applicant should not be penalized on account of the husband's conduct. That meant that the applicant was entitled to have her application for benefits evaluated without regard to the husband's financial condition. N.O. v. Morris Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10246-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 110, Initial Decision (February 11, 2015). Determination by a county Board of Social Services (CBSS) denying Medicaid benefits to an applicant on the ground that the applicant had failed to provide required information was rejected by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on findings that the agency had ignored applicable regulations. Because the applicant had Alzheimer's and was confined to a nursing home, she was unable to assist her daughters, who filed the application on her behalf. To the extent that the application was denied on the ground that the daughters had not cooperated, the record did not support that position because that provision concerns cases where an applicant or her representative did not cooperate. Here, the daughters clearly were cooperating to the best of their ability. Moreover, there could be a basis for concluding that the failure to obtain verification of a single item in the amount of $ 45.88 was the fault of the agency, which might have had more success in dealing with the insurance company that had issued it. Finally, though there was authority for the agency's proposition that the normal deadline for compliance had passed, the regulation also recognized that there were circumstances where the processing of an application would be delayed beyond the time that was normally utilized and the agency should have allowed additional time. On that basis, the matter was properly remanded to the agency for a disposition on the merits. M.D. v. DMAHS and Atlantic Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14997-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 210, Initial Decision (February 10, 2015). Nursing home resident's application for Medicaid benefits was not properly denied on the basis claimed by the agency, which was that the resident had not provided sufficient verification of factors related to eligibility, including sources of income and resources. Though the agency claimed that there were three items that had not been provided and that the denial was based on that omission, the resident in fact demonstrated that all documents with the exception of one account verification had been provided to the agency and that telephone calls to the agency to confirm that the documents as provided were sufficient were not returned. On these facts, the agency's demand, on May 23, 2014, for additional documentation after it had had no contact with the resident for five months and its cognate refusal to respond to the resident's request for additional time to provide that last item was arbitrary and unreasonable. R.D. v. Camden Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 9056-14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 127, Initial Decision (January 29, 2015). Department of Medical Assistance and Health Services and the Atlantic County Board of Social Services appropriately denied an application for Medicaid benefits for failure to provide required documentation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(e). Contrary to the applicant's assertion, the denial determination provided adequate notice regarding the required documentation. To require that the Medicaid denial determination provide the specific documents the agency alleged were not provided would be to unnecessarily broaden the definition of adequate notice found in the case law or federal regulations. This was particularly true in this matter where it was clear that the applicant's attorney acknowledged the request for specific information only one week before the Medicaid denial determination. R.P. v. Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Serv. and Atlantic County Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07818-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 778, Initial Decision (November 25, 2014). When an applicant failed to provide timely and sufficient verification to be considered for Medicaid eligibility as required by N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(e)2, the county welfare office properly denied the application. Although the applicant argued that his estranged spouse was uncooperative and hindered his ability to provide the requested documents and spend down verification, he did not request any additional extensions or do anything about the uncooperative spouse until several months after the application was filed. There was no evidence that the applicant advised the board of these exceptional circumstances or that he requested additional extensions as a result of the