Page 48

Page 12 of 12 § 10:71-2.3 Policy and procedure on prompt disposition 2.2 and N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.3(c), the fact was that the applicant was not financially eligible for participation in the program. That is, the processing agencies' failure to comply with those requirements, including the 45-day processing requirement, did not provide a basis for an award of benefits to an otherwise ineligible applicant as such a retroactive award would be in contravention of N.J.A.C. 10:49-22.1(b). A.H. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs. and Morris Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 00531-13, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 91, Initial Decision (January 27, 2014). Administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended a revision of the approval of a Medicaid application to reflect an earlier effective date. The preponderance of the credible evidence clearly established that the DHAHS and County Board of Social Services (agency) failed to process the application in a timely manner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:71- 2.3(a), allowing the ALJ to afford minimal deference to the agency's witness, and no evidence existed to establish that the applicant's available assets exceeded the $ 2,000 threshold at the time of the application as required by N.J.A.C. 10-71-4.5(b). The undisputed credible evidence demonstrated that the all funds that were in the applicant's bank accounts were not accessible to him through his sole temporary guardian. Once his permanent guardian was appointed and the applicant's assets were transferred, the Office of the Public Guardian took immediate steps to ensure that those funds were used to pay the nursing home facility for the applicant's costs of care, pharmacy and pre-paid burial. J.T. v. DMAHS and Hudson Cnty. Bd. Of Social Servs., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 15301-12, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 52, Initial Decision (March 7, 2014). Petitioner's application for Medicaid was properly denied because the county board of social services contacted her on four different occasions at the address that she had provided to request verification of various items in the application, and the petitioner did not provide the requested materials. Since the application, by law, had to be processed within 90 days of filing, petitioner's cognate claim that the board had failed to act in a timely manner was unsubstantiated. N.R. v. DMAHS and Union Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07734-14, 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 615, Final Agency Decision (September 19, 2013). NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright © 2025 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law End of Document