Medicaid

Medicaid: No Transfer Penalty Where Transfer Was Exclusively for Purpose Other Than to Qualify for Medicaid

Transfer penalty cannot be imposed where transfer was exclusively for purpose other than to qualify for Medicaid. Petitioner was admitted to a nursing home with dementia and her doctor states she cannot make legal decisions. Petitioner owned her home jointly with her daughter following the death of Petitioner’s husband. The daughter then conveyed the home to satisfy a debt and apparently left town; the ALJ recited that her whereabouts were unknown. Due to her dementia, Petitioner did not know that she no longer owned the home. A transfer penalty was imposed. Petitioner sought to avoid the penalty by showing the transfer was for a reason other than to qualify for Medicaid. The Georgia Manual provided that this exception to application of the transfer penalty exclusion does not apply to the transfer of a homeplace. See Section 2342. The ALJ found that the Georgia Manual conflicts with federal law, 42 U.S.C.§ 1396p(c)(2)(C)(ii), on this point and that the State cannot impose a penalty if the transfer was exclusively for a purpose other than qualifying for Medicaid. Citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), the ALJ found that Georgia’s Medicaid Manual conflicts with federal law to the extent it imposes a transfer penalty even if the transfer was made exclusively for a purpose other that to qualify for Medicaid. In determining whether the exemption applied, the ALJ found that the nursing home resident was “elderly, vulnerable and suffers from dementia.” She was taken advantage of and did not even know the home had been sold. Under these facts, the Court found that Petition met her burden and no penalty could be imposed. By footnote the Court found that even if the exception did not apply, Petitioner would still be entitled to an undue hardship exception under Section 2345-2 (“the applicant or representative must have taken legal action and equitable remedies to recover the asset before undue hardship can be considered”). Since she was unable to take action on her own, she discharged her duty to recover the property by engaging Georgia Legal Services and seeking help from Adult Protective Services.

OSAH-Whitfield-Miller-4-2008.pdf (April 29, 2008).

Recent Posts

2025 Spousal Impoverishment Standards

On November 15, 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services posted the 2025 spousal…

2 weeks ago

Social Security Disability versus Veteran’s Disability

The word disability doesn't have the same meaning in all contexts. If you have a…

4 weeks ago

Social Security Announces 2.5 Percent Benefit Increase for 2025

On October 10, 2024, the Social Security Administration announced that Americans will increase a 2.5…

2 months ago

Getting Organized

Many people think that estate planning is just having documents prepared. They have a lawyer…

2 months ago

Beneficiary who accepted inheritance under Will could not bring action for tortious interference

In Chambers v. Edwards, 365 Ga. App. 482 (2022), William Chambers sued his sister, Kathy…

2 months ago

Medicaid’s payment of medical bills does not bar recovery from negligent party

When an injured party sues someone who negligently injured him or her, one form of…

2 months ago