In E.S. vs. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, petitioner, a 91 year old nursing home resident, transferred $42,053 to her son after paying the nursing home privately from her savings for two years. The nursing home payments and the gift combined to leave petitioner with no assets, so she applied for Medicaid. The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), the State Medicaid agency, imposed a 6 month and 9 day penalty period as a result of the gift. During the penalty period, the petitioner’s son paid the nursing home’s bill each month using the gifted assets to pay for care. A total of $30,488 was paid to the nursing home by the son from the gifted assets. Both the petitioner and DMAHS agreed that the payments made by petitioner’s son to the nursing home for petitioner’s care were considered to be a “returned gift” under the Medicaid rules, resulting in a proportional reduction in the penalty period. The remaining funds, $11,605, were treated as the remaining gift, resulting in a reduced penalty period of 1 month and 9 days of ineligibility for Medicaid. When DMAHS and petitioner disagreed about the start date of the reduced penalty period, petitioner appealed.
The appeal was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Stephanie M. Wauters. After a hearing, ALJ Wauters held that both petitioner and DMAHS misinterpreted the law regarding “returned gifts” under Medicaid. According to ALJ Wauters, no reduction in the penalty period can occur if assets are returned after an application for Medicaid benefits has been filed. Since all payments were made to the nursing home after a Medicaid application had been filed, Judge Wauters held that the payments made to the nursing home had no effect on the penalty period, and the original 6 month and 9 day penalty period should not have been reduced. The judge also held that the returned gifts were available to the petitioner because the nursing home was paid by the son in advance, one month before each payment was due, and, therefore, the petitioner was ineligible for Medicaid due to excess resources.
The petitioner filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. The case in now pending before the Director of DMAHS.
The new case disallowing reductions in a Medicaid penalty period based upon the return of gifted assets after a Medicaid application is filed is annexed here – es-v-dmahs
The exceptions filed by the petitioner can be found here – es-v-dmahs-exceptions
UPDATE: The Director of DMAHS affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The Director’s decision can be found here – es-v-dmahs-directors-final-decision The applicant did not appeal from the Director’s decision. As a result, ES vs. DMAHS is the governing law in New Jersey at this time.
AGAIN UPDATED ON 3/29/10 – The E.S. case was appealed. Recently, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division affirmed the decisions below, holding that a life care contract between a nursing home resident and her daughter, in which the resident paid her daughter a lump sum for the future provision of personal care services, was not a transfer for fair market value for the purposes of Medicaid eligibility. (I blogged about the appellate division’s decision here.)
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media