Transfers to appellant’s son of $551,466.94 from appellant’s bank accounts between 6/20/08 and 5/12/10 as well as the payment of $107,433.98 to the son from proceeds of the sale of appellant’s residence on 12/01/10 are disqualifying transfers of a total of $658,900.92; there is no evidenced benefit received by appellant or her spouse for the transfer of $658,900.92 to the son over a two year period; the multiple transfers of money constitute outright gifts and thus multiple disqualifying transfers.
Category: Denial
Appeal 1107446
No evidence presented to show that the appellant received fair market value at the time she made the transfers to her son; the payments were done in advance of the services being provided by the appellant’s son; there was no testimony or evidence to demonstrate that this is a typical practice of property management; it is difficult to conclude that the transfers were made exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth when the appellant demonstrated that a contract was entered into after entering a facility and payments were made in advance of services being provided.
Appeal 1009905
Appellant’s withdrawal is a disqualifying transfer; intent and lack of fair market value consideration; appellant had intent to qualify for MassHealth because she was in declining health at the time of the transfer, evidenced by the sale of her home and the need to enter an assisted living center.
Appeal 1010857
Appellant had been in the nursing home nearly 4 months when $36,312.50 was withdrawn from her Seamen’s account to “pay” her friend and attorney-in-fact “for services rendered pursuant to the DPOA”. MassHealth considered the money a gift and thus, a disqualifying transfer; no written agreement to pay for any services rendered; JK was acting as appellant’s trusted friend and there was no agreement that she would be paid to provide any personal care services within or outside of the four corners of the DPOA; the activities provided by JK for appellant do not have an ascertainable fair-market value.
Appeal 1009605
Community spouse has gross monthly income of $1,061.50 and MassHealth has calculated an MMMNA of $2,191.00; regulations dictate MassHealth consider the institutionalized spouse’s income for the community spouse when there is a shortfall between the community spouse’s income and the MMMNA; appellant or institutional spouse has income of $1,628.52 (after subtraction of the appellant’s health insurance of $113.20 and his personal needs allowance of $72.80); community spouse retains $1,129.50 of the institutional spouse income to meet the MMMNA; the PPA is correct.
Appeal 1001130
Disqualifying transfer; delivery of deed occurred when it was recorded inside the look-back period; appellant claimed to have transferred property before look-back period but deed never recorded; appellant transferred property again in 2007 however, which she would not have been able to do if an earlier transfer had occurred; also there was not evidence of the original deed aside from a copy, nor did the closing attorney testify.
Appeal 0917330
The evidence does not support that the Contract is valid and binding or for fair market value; additionally, there is ample evidence that the transfer was not done exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for MassHealth; no evidence to support the claim that appellant received care 24/7 from 2003 through to her admission in 2009 that could account for the total amount transferred in the period of that time the transfers occurred.
Appeal 0806071
Fair Hearing Rehearing Decision 0806071
Rehearing: the annuity is a private agreement that is no more than an unenforceable, unsecured promise that ten monthly payments of $6,264.34 might be made with a return that is $1,356.60 less that the $64,000.00 transferred; the annuity was entered into by appellant (or someone on her behalf) with an entity not licensed in the Commonwealth, making it legally invalid in the state of Massachusetts; because of the agreement’s invalidity, it cannot be found to have fair market value; appellant entered into this agreement solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for MassHealth.
Appeal 0809900
The caregiver agreement entered into by appellant’s daughter in her capacity as appellant’s power-of-attorney, and appellant’s son as caregiver, is a disqualifying transfer of assets; less than fair market value; no acceptable tangible evidence that appellant received an assisted living level of care in her son’s home.
Appeal 0804275
Appellant made a disqualifying transfer of the value of his half of the property, or $250,000.00, as the transfer precluded MassHealth from placing a lien on it; the action taken, removing the appellant as a joint owner of the property, made it impossible for MassHealth to place a lien on it; MassHealth would have been entitled to a lien because neither the appellant nor his spouse lived in it at the time of application; the appellant did not receive anything for the transfer, thus it is disqualifying; given the proximity between the appellant’s application and the transfer, only a few weeks, qualifying for MassHealth was a factor, thus satisfying the intent requirement.
MassHealth Appeals 