Page 40

Page 4 of 12 § 10:71-2.3 Policy and procedure on prompt disposition applicant was ineligible by reason of resources during the third month. B.B. v. Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 628-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 649, Initial Decision (August 24, 2017). Failure by a social services board to process an application for Medicaid benefits within the 45-day period imposed by law was not excused by the fact that the caseworker assigned to the file died during that period because there was no reason why the file should not have been timely reassigned to another caseworker. J.D. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 03198-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 398, Initial Decision (June 20, 2017). Director approved of and adopted ALJ's report and recommendation finding that the failure and/or refusal of a husband of an incapacitated wife to disclose his resources in connection with a redetermination of the wife's Medicaid eligibility did not provide grounds to either extend the time for compliance or grant a "spousal waiver." K.Z. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16945-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1143, Final Agency Determination (May 23, 2017). Agency's denial of an application for Medicaid nursing home benefits on the ground that agency requests for information were unfulfilled was reversed because, unbeknown to the agency, applicant's wife, who was responding to the agency's information requests, had been hospitalized as a result of a fall and spent several weeks in a rehabilitation facility. Given those unforeseen circumstances, the applicant's wife should have been allowed additional time to respond to the agency's follow-up requests. R.B. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NOS. HMA 14375-16, HMA 04295-16 (Consolidated), 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 313, Initial Decision (May 15, 2017). ALJ's determination that an applicant's first Medicaid application was properly denied was approved by the Director, but the ALJ's finding reversing the county social services board's ruling that a second application should not be denied was rejected by the Director. The fact that the applicant's wife, who was responding to the agency's information requests, had been hospitalized due to a fall and had spent several weeks in a rehabilitation facility was an insufficient basis for relief because the applicant at all times was represented by counsel. That meant that "exceptional circumstances" justifying an extension of the deadline for submission of verifications were not shown. R.B. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 04295-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1169, Final Agency Determination (May 13, 2017). Failure and/or refusal of the husband of an incapacitated wife who was receiving long-term nursing home services to provide disclosure of his resources as needed for a redetermination of the wife's eligibility did not provide grounds for an order either extending the time for compliance or granting a "spousal waiver." Counsel to the nursing home, which had initiated the redetermination process in January 2016 on behalf of the wife, did not take any steps to include the recalcitrant husband in a motion for an order to show cause compelling the wife's son, who was her guardian, to cooperate in the redetermination process. Nor was a "spousal waiver" appropriate on these facts. K.Z. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 16945-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 219, Initial Decision (April 5, 2017). Applicant for Medicaid won limited relief on claims that her eligibility date was properly based on an application that she made on May 8, 2015 as opposed to on a second application dated August 23, 2016. The social services board had violated various regulations in connection with the earlier application, which it apparently had misplaced, so it was properly ordered to dispose of the May 8 application within 45 days of the ruling. S.D. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 02582-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 181, Initial Decision (March 29, 2017). ALJ rejected a determination that an applicant was ineligible for Medicaid on findings that in fact she had substantively demonstrated financial eligibility. The application languished for almost 250 days, well beyond the timelines imposed by governing law, and then was denied on a finding that the applicant's resources were $ 0.21 over the maximum. Since that amount would plainly be rounded down under most accounting protocols, the denial was arbitrary and capricious. M.R. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 17658-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 147, Initial Decision (March 9, 2017).