
J.G., an indigent nursing home resident, applied for Medicaid benefits. While his Medicaid application was pending, J.G. passed away. Thereafter, the Essex County Division of Family Assistance and Benefits, the county welfare agency, denied J.G.’s Medicaid application, concluding he was ineligible as he died before eligibility could be met.
Future Care Consultants, J.G.’s designated authorized representative (DAR), submitted a timely appeal and request for a fair hearing to challenge the decision denying Medicaid benefits. The state Medicaid agency, the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), refused to transmit the appeal until an executor or estate administrator was appointed for J.G.’s estate. Because no executor or administrator was ever appointed for the estate, DMAHS denied the fair hearing request. J.G.’s DAR then appealed the denial of the fair hearing request to the Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court.
On appeal, DMAHS argued it failed to schedule a fair hearing because Future Care Consultants “lacked authorization from J.G.’s estate” to pursue a hearing. That is, Future Care Consultants’ status as J.G.’s designated authorized representative was extinguished upon J.G.’s death and Future Care Consultants was never appointed executor or administrator of J.G.’s estate.
The Court interpreted DMAHS’ position as a claim that Future Care Consultants did not have standing, and therefore, had no right to request a hearing. The Court disagreed, resolving the issue as follows:
We conclude that the Division shall transfer the matter to the [Office of Administrative Law] for it to address that standing claim. A hearing will permit the Division to exercise its “special competence” and address in the first instance whether FCC is an applicant with standing . . . If the OAL determines FCC has standing, the merits of the dispute related to the county welfare agency’s denial of benefits to J.G. should be considered at a fair hearing conducted consistent with fundamental notions of due process. In the event FCC is deemed not to have standing, the OAL should also determine whether J.G.’s estate should be permitted, under the circumstances, to identify a new DAR for the purpose of prosecuting J.G.’s claim at a fair hearing.
Thus, the Appellate Division remanded the case back to the county welfare agency for DMAHS to transfer the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing.
The case is attached here – J.G. 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