The “actually available” requirement must be interpreted reasonably, and the focus is on the applicant's actual and practical ability to make an asset available as a matter of fact, not legal fiction.Christensen v. North Dakota Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 ND 77, ¶ 9, 796 N.W.2d 390 (citations omitted). [¶ 11] In calculating whether an applicant meets the asset eligibility requirements, federal law mandates that, if an individual has transferred or disposed of assets for less than full market value during a “look-back” period, the individual will be ineligible for Medicaid benefits for a prescribed period of time.

We conclude the trial court did not err by determining the funds in Hill's bank account were available and denying his petition for judicial review. Hill's only citation to case law from another jurisdiction that supports his position is Christensen v. N.D. Dep't of Hum. Servs. , 796 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 2011). The Christensen court found that the " ‘actually available’ requirement must be interpreted reasonably, and the focus is on the applicant's actual and practical ability to make an asset available as a matter of fact, not legal fiction."