
A.F. is a quadriplegic as a result of an accident that occurred 20 years ago. She is totally disabled and needs personal assistance to perform all activities of daily living. For many years, A.F. has relied upon Medicaid benefits to provide her with the assistance she desperately needs.
Under regulations, the Medicaid agency must re-determine a recipient’s eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits at least once every 12 months. Accordingly, the agency sent a letter requiring A.F. to provide information as well as a utility bill and copies of bank statements. A.F. responded and provided the information and documents requested.
In a second letter, the agency sought additional information and copies of life insurance policies allegedly owned by A.F.
A.F. did not respond to the agency’s second request on a timely basis. As a result, the agency terminated A.F.’s Medicaid benefits. The termination letter stated: “This action was taken for the following reason: CLIENT DID NOT SUPPLY LIFE INSURANCE INFORMATION.”
Upon receipt of the termination notice, A.F.’s attorney asserted that A.F. did not have insurance policies on her life. Rather, counsel disclosed that he had obtained two life insurance policies on his life in which he named A.F. as beneficiary on both policies. The Board did not respond to A.F.’s counsel.
Unable to reach a suitable resolution with the Medicaid agency, A.F. requested a fair hearing. After conducting two hearings, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision, finding that one insurance policy had lapsed and the other was a term policy with no surrender value. Neither policy had any affect on A.F.’s Medicaid eligibility. As a result, the ALJ recommended that the Medicaid Director uphold A.F.’s appeal and reverse the agency’s denial of redetermination.
However, the Medicaid Director rejected the ALJ’s Initial Decision. Although the Director admitted that information sought would not have affected A.F.’s eligibility to receive Medicaid benefits, the Director held that A.F.’s failure to provide the information and documents sought by the agency on a timely basis was sufficient grounds to deny the redetermination. The Director held as follows: “The credible evidence in the record demonstrates that Petitioner failed to provide the needed information prior to the . . . denial of benefits.”
A.F. appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The Court found that the agency’s decision in denying redetermination based on A.F.’s failure to provide information which the agency conceded would not have affected her eligibility to receive benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The Court ruled as follows:
The record shows A.F. was eligible to continue to receive Medicaid benefits . . . . The Board conceded before the ALJ that the information it requested, even if timely received, would not have provided a valid basis to deny A.F. Medicaid benefits. Distilled to its essence, the Director’s decision to deny Medicaid benefits to a severely disabled person based only on her failure to timely provide irrelevant information does not promote the Medicaid program salutary policy. Under these circumstances, the Director’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
The Court reversed and remanded the Medicaid Director’s decision, ordering the agency to reinstate A.F.’s Medicaid benefits.
The case is attached here – A.F. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services
For additional information concerning Medicaid applications and appeals, visit:
For additional information concerning Medicaid and public benefits planning, visit:
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