Page 47

Page 11 of 12 § 10:71-2.3 Policy and procedure on prompt disposition Services (SPS). Though it was quite clear that the adult's impairment was such that she could not help and that SPS's efforts to elicit assistance from her family members had been unsuccessful, the fact was that the agency had already afforded SPS substantial additional time beyond that prescribed by N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.3(a), which called for an application processing period of 60 days. Since adequate evidence had not been marshalled within the extended period, the Medicaid application was properly denied. C.S. v. DMAHS and Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 4549-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 378, Initial Decision (June 25, 2014). A county board of social services (CBSS) acted properly in denying Medicaid eligibility to an adult for whom her son had made an application for Medicaid benefits. The application was still incomplete despite the fact that it had been pending for 230 days and despite the fact that CBSS had made two written requests for additional documents, neither of which had been satisfied. Because N.J.A.C. 10:72-2.3(e) provided that the applicant or her representative (here, her son) were required to provide credible verification of all eligibility factors and the same had not been accomplished in this case, denial of Medicaid eligibility was proper. S.W. v. Camden Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 4508-14, AGENCY DKT. NO. 0415004449-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 365, Initial Decision (June 23, 2014). Determination that an applicant was not eligible for Medicaid was affirmed by an administrative law judge because the applicant did not meet the exceptional circumstances set forth in N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.3(c). He was physically but not mentally disabled. He engaged a professional Medicaid planner and had the capacity to assist that planner in obtaining the five-year look back material needed for his Medicaid application. It was uncontested that the applicant's wife was uncooperative in helping him complete his application. However, he had the matrimonial forum and the Office of Administrative Law forum to issue subpoenas as a means to compel production of the required banking documents for the look back analysis. A.V. v. Atlantic Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv. and Division of Med. Assistance and Health Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 5641-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 353, Initial Decision (July 18, 2014). Denial of an application for Medicaid was affirmed when the applicant failed to provide verification of his address in the form requested pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:70-2.3(a)1, N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.2(e)2, and N.J.A.C. 10:72-2.3(b). A letter from the landlord that was almost a year old was too old to verify the applicant's current address. A.M. v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 07033-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 346, Initial Decision (July 16, 2014). Board of Social Services' delay in processing a Medicaid application was not improper under N.J.A.C. 10:71- 2.3(c). Throughout the 21 months between the filing of initial application and its amended disposition, the information, including duplicates, was supplied on several occasions in response to the verifications sought. A transfer penalty was properly assessed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(i) arising from the transfer to her niece of the applicant's interest in a limited liability company that owned her home in exchange for a promissory note. While it was undisputed that the niece took the applicant into her home, sound proof did not exist concerning that arrangement. The fair market value documents did not provide an adequate market analysis of the home because they primarily reflected later values, and they clearly stated that the figures are not guaranteed. E.B. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 667-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 327, Initial Decision (June 9, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that a county board of social services had acted improperly in denying an application for Medicaid eligibility filed by an applicant because the review of that application was not concluded within the period in N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.3(a) and that no extension of the review period was proper under N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.3(c) and (d). The evidence clearly showed that the application was mishandled and ignored and that the reasons given for the denial were farcical. Moreover, the letter advising the applicant of the denial incorrectly stated that the application had expired. Such misconduct warranted a determination reversing the agency's decision to deny the application. M.B. v. DMAHS and Essex Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 18796-13, AGENCY Dkt. No. No. 0710482949-01, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 182, Initial Decision (April 8, 2014). An Administrative Law Judge concluded that even though an elderly woman's application for Medicaid's Global Options Assisted Living Waiver Program was not processed in accordance with the requirements in N.J.A.C. 10:71-