Page 67

Page 3 of 4 § 10:72-4.4 Income eligibility; aged, blind and disabled individuals Case Notes This regulation did not violate Title XIX of the Social Security Act because the agency's use of this regulation did not set an income level for eligibility that exceeded the federal poverty level (FPL) for a family of four or two people; rather, this regulation set an income level for eligibility that was less than the FPL for a family of four or two. G.C. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 33 (2020). This regulation conflicted with the New Jersey Medical Assistance and Health Services Act and had to be stricken because the eligibility determination had nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the applicant's family, and using the regulation's methodology, any adjustment for family size could result in additional deemed income, and not a reduction in the applicant's countable income, thereby driving an otherwise qualified applicant over the federal poverty level limit for a family of one. G.C. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 33 (2020). Where an applicant who had applied for Medicaid was an SSI recipient and was married, for "spouse to spouse deeming" to apply, the SSI recipient must first be eligible based on his own income. Here, because the applicant was not himself income-eligible based on his receipt of $ 1,138 in SSDI benefits, it was not necessary to consider whether any other household income was properly deemed. A.D. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14098-18, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 110, Final Agency Determination (January 25, 2019). Applicant for Medicaid whose only monthly income was $ 1,193 in Social Security Disability Income was not eligible for Medicaid because his income exceeded the $ 1,005 income limit for an individual. Since he was not income eligible in his own right, the deeming of any other household income was unnecessary. E.M. v. Essex Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 09002-18, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1296, Final Agency Determination (November 13, 2018). Medicaid applicant who was subject to a garnishment order requiring him to pay $ 850 monthly in child support was ineligible for Medicaid. There was no legal basis on which the applicant might deduct the $ 850 in child support from his income in order to reduce that income to an amount that was less than $ 1,105, being the Medicaid income eligibility limit. M.T. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12856-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 767, Initial Decision (October 3, 2017). Application for Medicaid was properly denied because the applicant's monthly income exceeded the eligibility limits imposed under applicable law. P.V. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 15779-16, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 95, Initial Decision (February 14, 2017). County Board of Social Services (CBSS) acted correctly when it terminated Medicaid benefits that were being received by a recipient who, with his spouse, lived with an adult daughter in a house owned by an adult son and his wife. The recipient currently received $ 1,079 monthly in Social Security benefits. Because the recipient and his wife, who had no income, lived in the household of another within the meaning of governing regulations, he was only permitted to earn $ 814.43 a month. Since his Social Security benefits exceeded that amount, the CBSS correctly terminated his Medicaid eligibility. Z.N. v. Hudson Cty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 11891- 14, 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 168, Initial Decision (March 24, 2015). Applicant was not eligible for Medicaid because his countable income exceeded the eligibility limit pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.4(a). He submitted no evidence to contradict this position. Since the applicant was income ineligible, none of his spouse's income was deemed to him. Therefore, he was New Jersey Care ineligible. A.P. v. Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Serv., OAL Dkt. No. HMA 05783-14, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 360, Initial Decision (July 9, 2014). Reinstatement of severely disabled man's New Jersey Care benefits in spite of income in excess of maximum allowable amount was appropriate. L.E. v. Camden County Board of Social Services, 94 N.J.A.R.2d (DMA) 11.