N.M. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services

405 N.J. Super. 353, 964 A.2d 822 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

N.M. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
405 N.J. Super. 353, 964 A.2d 822 (2009)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

N.M. (plaintiff) resided at King Manor Care Center (King Manor), a New Jersey nursing home. N.M.’s husband, A.M., was not in institutional care. Initially, N.M. paid privately for her care at King Manor. However, after spending down significant assets paying for healthcare costs, N.M. applied for Medicaid benefits. Shortly before N.M. applied for Medicaid benefits, A.M. purchased a commercial annuity with an income stream for which A.M. was the sole beneficiary. Although the annuity itself was nontransferable, A.M. could sell the annuity’s income stream on the secondary market. The Monmouth County Board of Social Services (board) (defendant) denied N.M.’s Medicaid application, holding that N.M. and A.M. collectively had countable resources totaling approximately $195,000 after deducting A.M.’s community spouse resource allowance (CSRA), which was nearly double New Jersey’s Medicaid asset limit. The board included A.M.’s annuity income stream as a countable resource after determining that the market value of the annuity’s income stream was approximately $90,000. N.M. appealed the denial. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) affirmed the board’s denial, holding that N.M. and A.M. needed to spend down their collective assets below the Medicaid asset limit before N.M. could qualify for Medicaid. N.M. appealed, arguing that the market value of A.M.’s annuity income stream should not have been counted toward her Medicaid asset limit because a community spouse’s income was not considered an available asset to an institutionalized spouse for Medicaid eligibility purposes.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Skillman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership