A.M v. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

Annotate this Case


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4789-09T1


A.M.,


Appellant,


v.


DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

AND HEALTH SERVICES and MONMOUTH

COUNTY DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES,


Respondents.


_______________________________________________________

March 18, 2011

 

Argued March 8, 2011 - Decided

 

Before Judges Espinosa and Skillman.

 

On appeal from Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services.

 

John W. Callinan argued the cause for appellant.

 

Jennifer Heger, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Heger, on the brief).

 

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a final decision of the Director of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, which upheld a determination by respondent Monmouth County Division of Social Services that appellant A.M., who is now deceased, was subject to a transfer penalty of three months and seven days before she became eligible for Medicaid nursing home benefits, based on her gift to her son, less than sixty months before her admission into the nursing home, of $22,103.97, which was more than half of her total assets. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the Director's final decision. We also note that appellant's estate failed to present any evidence as to how appellant was allegedly able to live independently during the period between her substantial gift to her son and her admission to the nursing home. Therefore, the record provides adequate support for the Director's finding that appellant's estate did not establish that appellant's gift to her son was exclusively for some purpose other than establishing Medicaid eligibility. See N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.10(l)(3).

Affirmed.

 

 

 

 



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.