As I reported in a blog post in October at https://vanarellilaw.com/2008/10/07/nj-judge-recently-ruled-that-a-medicaid-applicants-prepayment, ALJ Paone ruled, in a case entitled C.S. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and Union County Board of Social Services, that Medicaid applicants who prepaid for personal care services to be provided in the future by family members under Life Care Contracts were ineligible for Medicaid because the prepayments constituted transfers of assets for less than fair market value, subjecting the applicants to the imposition of penalty periods under the Medicaid program. The judge reasoned that,since the value of an asset under the Medicaid regulations [N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.1(d)] is defined as “ the price that the resource can reasonable be expected to sell for on the open market in the particular geographic area…”, and since the Life Care Contracts in issue prohibited the sale, transfer or assignment of any rights or benefits conferred by the contract, the “contracts lack[ed] intrinsic value and, thus, possessed no fair market value”.
The parties filed exceptions, and the case was reviewed by the Director of the state Medicaid agency. The Director recently filed his final agency decision, affirming the ALJ’s decision and finding the Medicaid applicants ineligible for Medicaid. The Director held that:
[N]one of the Petitioners have received fair market value for the assets transferred to their children and grandchildren and that Respondents properly imposed a transfer penalty. These “care agreements”, set up either just prior to or just after applying for Medicaid benefits, serve as a vehicle to transfer assets to these relatives for some specious jobs that may or may not occur at a later date.
The Director’s decision is attached here – cs-es-lk-v-dmahs1
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