Page 60

Page 2 of 2 § 10:71-2.10 Collateral investigation obtained by the applicant or her agents. This was especially true because the applicant did not state, in any of her applications, that she needed assistance in completing the applications. V.S. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 08041-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 249, Initial Decision (April 26, 2017). 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). Initial Decision (2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 209) adopted, which concluded that an application for Medicaid benefits under the Medically Needy program was correctly denied for the applicant's failure to provide requested information regarding three attempts to sell the subject annuity, which the applicant claimed was an unavailable resource; while the Division may ultimately bear the burden of proving that a market exists, and that this particular annuity could be sold, this did not relieve the applicant of her obligation to produce information the Division requested. D.M. v. DMAHS, OAL Dkt. No. HMA 6394-06, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 546, Final Decision (June 11, 2007). Home was non-liquid resource excluded from determining Medicaid eligibility as long as applicant agreed to liquidate within six months of application date. J.N. v. Division of Medical Assistance, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (DMA) 55. NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Copyright © 2025 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law End of Document