BEFORE EMILY DANEKER, APPELLANT, AN ... - Maryland

* BEFORE EMILY DANEKER,

APPELLANT,

* AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

v.

"'

OF THE MARYLAND OFFICE

* OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

* OAH No.: DHS

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* .

01¡¤19-23298

*

*

*

*

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ISSUES

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

FINDINGS OF FACT

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

ORDER

REVIEW RIGHTS

STATE1\1ENT OF THE CASE

At all relevant times

(Appellant) has been receiving benefits under the

Food Supplement Program (FSP),1 issued through th

(Local Department). From December 2017, at the latest, until July 2019, the Appellant

received FSP benefits for a household of one, consisting of the Appellant and c;:,mitting her minor

son. On July 15, 2019, the Appellant re-applied for FSP benefits as a household of two,

consisting of the Appellant and her minor son. In a letter dated that same day, the Local

Department notified the Appellant that her FSP benefit was increasing from $159.00 per month

to $320.00 per month, due to the increase in size of her FSP household. On or about July 22,

2019, the Appellant. filed ¡¤a request for a fair hearing, asserting that the Local Department had, in

or about December 2017 and at all times through and including her February 2019

redetermination, wrongly omitted her son from her.FSP household. 7 C.F.R. ¡ì 273.15(h)

1 The

federal program is entitled the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" (SNAP).

(2018);2 see also Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 07.01.04.03B. The Local

Department contends, among other things, that the appeal is untimely.

On August 20, 2019, I held a hearing at the Local Department's office in

7 C.f.R. ¡ì 273.lS(a); see also COMAR 07.01.04.21B. The Appellant represented herself at the

hearing.

Appeals Unit Specialist, represented the Local Department.

The contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the procedural

regulations of the Department of Human Services (DHS), and the Rules of Procedure of the

OAH govern procedure.in this case. Md. Code Ann., State Gov't ¡ì¡ì 10-201 through 10-226

(2014 & Supp. 2018); 7 C.F.R. ¡ì 273.15(1)-(q); COMAR 07.01.04; COMAR 28.02.01.

ISSUES

1.

Is the¡¤ Appellant's appeal untimely?

2.

If not, did the Local Department err in calculating the Appellant's FSP allotment?

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Exhibits

The Local Department offered the following exhibits, which I admitted into evidence:

LD Ex.' f-

Notification of Fair Hearing, August 1, 2019, with the following attachments:

? Local Department Summary for Appeal Hearing, August 1, 2019

? COMAR 07.03.17.48, 07.03.03.13, 07.03.17.14

? Excerpted narrations, dated between February 15, 2019 and July 22, 2019

? Failure to Redetermine/Recertify Eligibility notice, February 13, 2019

? Redetermination/Recertification _Results, February 26, 2019

? Redetermination/Recertification Results, June 18, 2019

? Notice of Change in [FSP] Benefits, July 15, 2019

? Benefit History Listing, December 18, 201 7 through August 18, 2019

? Redetermination Application, February 5, 2019

? Redetermination Application, July 15, 2019¡¤

? SVES3 State Online Query: General Information, Social.¡ãSecurity Information; ¡¤

Supplemental Security Infonnation, August 1, 2019

The federal regulations that apply to-the SNAP are found in Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R).

Unless otherwise noted, all citations herein to the C.F.R. are to the 2018 volume.

3

State Verification and Exchange System

¡¤

2

2

i

?

LD Ex. 2 -

DHS Family Investment Administration Action Transmittal, ¡ì 600.4,

Determining the Food Supplement Program Allotment, page 2 only, undated

Addendum to Summary, undated, with the following attachments:

? COMAR 07.03.17.48, COMAR 07.01.04.03

? Food Stamp Financial Eligibility screen shot, July 31, 2019

? Food Supplement Calculation Sheet, screen shot, June and July 2019

The Appellant offered the following exhibit, which I admitted into evidence:

App.

Ex. 1 -

Collection of documents consisting of:

? Redetermination Case Information ,Form (Temporary Cash Assistance), pages

1-2 of 6, for J_anuary 31, 2017

? Redetermination/Recertification Appointment notice, November 22, 2016

? Notice of Change in FSP Benefits, December 8, 2018

? Approval for the FSP notice, page 1 only, September 11, 2018

? Notice of Change in FSP Benefits, December 8, 2018

Testimony

The Local Department's representative testified on its behalf.

The Appellant testified in her own behalf.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:

1.

The Appellant, born in-1992,-is the moth~r of a minor child (Child)," born in

2015.

2.

Prior to 2017, the Appellant received FSP benefits through the Local D~partment

for a household of two; consisting of the Appellant and her minor son. . ,

3.

In December 2016, the Appellant began receiving Supplemental Security Income

. (SSI) disability benefits. (See LD Ex. 1 at 33.)

. 4.

Sometime in or about early 2017, the Appell~t went to the Local Department's

offices, in connection with her FSP recertification, and advised the Local Department that she

was receiving SSI benefits. The Appellant understood her caseworker to say that the Appellant

could no longer receive FSP benefits due to her receipt of SSI and that she would be removed

3

4

from the FSP household.4 Nonetheless, for unexplained reasons, the Appellant's son was

removed from the FSP household, and, by no later than December 2017, the Appellant began

receiving FSP benefits for a household consisting solely of herself.

5.

On or about September 11, 2018, the Appellanfreceived a notice of Approval for

the FSP in which the Local Department advised-the Appellant of her continued eligibility for

FSP benefits. The notice specified that she would "receive¡¤benefits for the people listed below:

'and that she had a "household size [of] l." The notice advised the Appellant that she

should contact her case manager within ten days if she believed the Local Department made its

decision using wrong information and that she could request a Fair Hearing within ninety days of

the notice if she believed the decision was wrong. (App. Ex. 1.) The Appellant did not notify

the Local Department that her minor son should be included in her FSP household and she did

not appeal the Local Department's eligibility determination.

6:

Sometime prior to January 15, 2019, the Local Department provided the

¡¤Appellant with a Redetermination Applicatio:r:i for February 28, 2019, on which the Appellant

was the only person identified under the pre-populated section of the application titled

"Assistance Unit Members." The application further specified that the Appellant's relationship

to the head of household was "self." (LD Ex. I at 21.)

7.

The Appellant

completed

and signed that Redetermination Application, indicating

.

.

there were no changes to the household composition. She returned the application to the Local

Department on or about February 5, 2019. (LD Ex. 1 at 21-25)

8.

On February 26, 2019, the Local Department sent a notice to the Appellant

advising her that she was again approved for FSP benefits and that she would "r~ceive benefits

4

Receipt ofSSI benefits is not a disqualifier for the FSP. See COMAR 07.03.17.12. ¡¤Prior to March 2017, the

Appellant was also receiving Temporary Cash Assistance (TCA), (App. Ex. l); the Appellant's receipt ofSSI would

have disqualified her from receiving TCA. COMAR 07.Q3.03.06C(l2).

¡¤

4

,

for the people listed below:

' The notice further specified that the Appellant had a

¡¤"household size [of] l." Th~ notice also advised the Appellant that if she believed the Local ¡¤

Department u~ed the wrong in¡À:onnation in its decision, she should contact her case manager

wjthin ten days, and she could request a Fair Hearing within ninety days of the notice. (LD Ex. 1

at 13-14.)

9.

The February 26, 2019 no~ice stated that the Appellant's FSP benefit was $159.00

per month for the certification period of March 1, 2019 through Feb~ary 29, 2020. It advised

the Appellant that she would receive FSP benefits for this period unless there was a change in

her circumstances.

10.

After receiving the February 26, 2019 notice, the Appel)ant did not notify the

.

.

Local Department within ten days that her son should be included in the FSP household and she

did not request an appeal within ninety days of the noti~.

11.

No later than July 15, 2019, the Local Department provided the Appellant with an

FSP Redetermination Application for th.e certification period commencing August 31, 2019; the

Appellant was the only person identified under the pre-populated section of the application titled

"Assistance Unit Members."

12.

On July 15, 2019, the Appellant came to the Local Department for a ¡¤

redetermination interview and was verbally¡¤ advised that the Child was not a part of her

assi~tance unit. The Appellant thereupon requested that the Child be added to her back into her

FSP assistance unit and included the Child's information on her Redetennination Application,

which she provided to the Local.Department ~at ~ay.

13.

On or about July 15, 2019, the Local Department reinstated the Child to the

Appellant's household and increased the Appellant's FSP allotment to $320.00 per month.

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download