![]()
CHAPTER 275. APPEAL AND FAIR HEARING AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS
Subchap. Sec.
A. APPEAL AND FAIR HEARING 275.1
B. ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS 275.11Notes of Decisions Hearing and appeal procedures set forth in this chapter relate only to hearing rights of welfare recipients and applicants; the General Rules of Administrative Practice, 1 Pa. Code § § 35.135.251 govern the hearing rights of and is the applicable law for providers. Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry v. Department of Public Welfare, 513 A.2d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Cross References This chapter cited in 6 Pa. Code § 21.23 (relating to application process for domiciliary care service and the domiciliary care supplement); 55 Pa. Code § 41.1 (relating to scope); 55 Pa. Code § 107.4 (relating to procedures to assure nondiscrimination of participating agencies, institutions, organizations and vendors); 55 Pa. Code § 133.4 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 140.126 (relating to notification of eligibility/ineligibility); 55 Pa. Code § 140.144 (relating to appeal rights for presumptive eligibility); 55 Pa. Code § 140.145 (relating to notice and appeal rights for MA applicants); 55 Pa. Code § 140.341 (relating to appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 140.531 (relating to notice, appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 140.791 (relating to appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 141.21 (relating to policy); 55 Pa. Code § 141.58 (relating to appeal rights); 55 Pa. Code § 142.23 (relating to requirements); 55 Pa. Code § 165.51 (relating to compliance review); Pa. Code § 165.81 (relating to fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 168.101 (relating to appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 187.26 (relating to non-cooperation); 55 Pa. Code § 227.24 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 299.22 (relating to eligibility requirements for SSA-administered optional SSP for DCS and PCS); 55 Pa. Code § 299.33 (relating to appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 231.24 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 255.1 (relating to restitution and disqualification policy); 55 Pa. Code § 255.4 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 258.13 (relating to appeals and jurisdiction); 55 Pa. Code § 281.5 (relating to ineligibility for time-out); 55 Pa. Code § 451.1 (relating to policy); 55 Pa. Code § 601.123 (relating to appeals and fair hearings); 55 Pa. Code § 1101.31 (relating to scope); 55 Pa. Code § 1101.94 (relating to recipient right of appeal); 55 Pa. Code § 1150.59 (relating to PSR program); 55 Pa. Code § 1153.53a (relating to requests for waiver of hourly limits); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.83 (relating to inspections of care); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.85 (relating to facility utilization review requirements); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.504 (relating to background); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.561 (relating to process to appeal adverse determinations in the preadmission screening program); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.568 (relating to how long it will take to get a decision); 55 Pa. Code Ch. 1181 Appx. N (relating to right to appeal and fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 1187.158 (relating to appeals); 55 Pa. Code § 2050.52 (relating to appeals and fair hearings for applicants and clients); 55 Pa. Code § 2060.14 (relating to Departmental appeal and hearing request); 55 Pa. Code § 2070.42 (relating to appeals and fair hearings for applicants and clients); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.3 (relating to definitions); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.174 (relating to parent or caretaker rights and responsibilities); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.176 (relating to hearing procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.189 (relating to disqualification); 55 Pa. Code § 3140.17 (relating to review of county plans and budgets); 55 Pa. Code § 3140.139 (relating to hearing and appeal); 55 Pa. Code § 3140.210 (relating to right to hearing and appeal); 55 Pa. Code § 5221.53 (relating to recipient right of appeal); 55 Pa. Code § 6210.107 (relating to recipient right of appeal of alternate care determinations); and 55 Pa. Code § 6210.108 (relating to facility utilization review).
Subchapter A. APPEAL AND FAIR HEARING
GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec.
275.1. Policy.
275.2. Definitions.
275.3. Requirements.
275.4. Procedures.
STATEMENTS OF POLICY
275.5. Settling appeals and paying retroactive benefitsstatement of policy.
Cross References This subchapter cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.22 (relating to combining a fair hearing and an administrative disqualification hearing).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 275.1. Policy.
(a) Right to appeal and have a fair hearing. The policy with regard to the right to appeal and have a fair hearing will be as follows:
(1) The freedom of the applicant or recipient to request a hearing is a fundamental right and is not to be limited or interfered with in any way.
(2) The regulations contained in this chapter, in accordance with the law, afford every person applying for or receiving a money payment, medical assistance, food stamps or services the right to appeal from a Departmental action or failure to act and to have a hearing if he is dissatisfied with a decision refusing or discontinuing assistance in whole or in part.
(3) As used in this chapter, the term departmental includes, in addition to County Assistance Offices, agencies which administer or provide social services under contractual arrangements with the Department.
(4) The term assistance as used in this chapter means a money payment, medical assistance, food stamps and services.
(i) Right of appeal. Therefore, the opportunity for a hearing will include the right of appeal from the following:
(A) A denial, suspension or discontinuance in whole or in part.
(B) A change in the amount of payment.
(C) A denial, discontinuance, reduction or exclusion from a Departmental service program including the failure to take into account the clients choice of a service or a determination that he must participate in a service program.
(D) The manner or form of payments, including restricted or protective payments. Exception: When the Department denies or discontinues a protective or vendor payment the right of appeal in this clause will not apply.
(E) Undue delay in making a payment adjustment or acting upon a request or application.
(F) Overpayment and reimbursement claims, including the computation of the amount of the claim and collection procedures.
(G) An action taken under the Child Support Enforcement Program (IV-D), that is, assignment or reassignment of support orders, reimbursement of delayed support payments, arrearages and the like.
(H) A denial of a request for a correction or a deletion in the case file.
(ii) No right of appeal. An appeal will be dismissed by the Office of Hearings and Appeals under the following circumstances:
(A) A person will not have the right to appeal from the following:
(I) A decision by the Department to initiate prosecution proceedings under § 255.4 (relating to procedures).
(II) When the decision does not involve food stamps and the sole issue is one of State or Federal law requiring automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients, unless there is an error in the mathematical computation of the grant. There is always a right to appeal a food stamp decision.
(III) Where a decision has been rendered after a WIN hearing before the manpower agency that a participant has, without good cause, refused to accept employment or participate in the WIN Program, or has failed to request such a hearing after notice of intended action for the refusal.
(IV) When a reimbursement claim has been collected by the Bureau of Claims Settlement, a client who desires to have money returned to him which has been reimbursed to the Department must petition the Department of Treasury, Board of Finance and Revenue.
(B) A client will be notified in writing of his right to request a hearing when a decision is made on eligibility and when a change in eligibility occurs. The written notices of this right appear on the Form PA 5-M, Form PA 162, Form PA 162-A, and Form PA 162-C.
(b) Objectives of appeals and fair hearings. The objectives of appeals and fair hearing will be as follows:
(1) To afford applicants and recipients an opportunity for an impartial, objective review of decisions, actions and delays, or in actions made by County Assistance Offices and the Department.
(2) To settle the issue or issues raised by the client in requesting a hearing and to produce a clear and definitive decision setting forth the findings of the Department.
(3) To contribute to uniformity in the application of Departmental regulations.
(4) To reveal aspects of Departmental regulations that are deficient, inequitable, or constitute a misconstruction of law.
Authority The provisions of this § 275.1 issued under sections 403(b) and 423 of the act of June 13, 1967 (P. L. 31, No. 21) (62 P. S. § § 403(b) and 423).
Source The provisions of this § 275.1 amended through June 19, 1981, effective August 19, 1981, 11 Pa.B. 2134. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (60725).
Notes of Decisions A letter from the Department of Public Welfare denying attorneys fees was not a final appealable adjudication for purposes of appellate jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 763 (relating to direct appeals from government agencies). Simmons v. Cohen, 534 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); affirmed 574 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1990).
The continuing right of appeal provided to recipients by 55 Pa. Code § 275.1 adequately satisfies due process. Philadelphia Welfare Rights Organization v. OBannon, 517 F. Supp. 501, 512 (E.D.Pa. 1981); affirmed 681 F.2d 808 (3rd. Cir. (Pa.) 1982).
A DPW adjudication in which a petitioner who represents himself requests a modification of a liability assessment on the grounds that the petitioners income has decreased is not in accord with law if the hearing examiner fails to ask the petitioner to state the issues at the commencement of the hearing and fails to settle the issue of whether petitioner had a loss of income and, if so, the effect of such loss on his liability. Brandt v. Department of Public Welfare, 427 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
AFDC recipients are not entitled to notice of their right to receive a hearing to contest the computation of the claim by the DPW for reimbursement of interim assistance, and GA recipients are not entitled to a hearing prior to collection of such reimbursement. Moore v. Colautti, 483 F. Supp. 357 (E.D. Pa. 1979); affirmed 633 F.2d 211 (3rd. Cir. (Pa.) 1980).
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 105.5 (relating to access by an individual to his case file); 55 Pa. Code § 165.51 (relating to compliance review); 55 Pa. Code § 275.4 (relating to procedures); and 55 Pa. Code § 291.23 (relating to requirements).
§ 275.2. Definitions.
The provisions of this § 275.3 amended through December 5, 1980, effective December 6, 1980, 10 Pa.B. 4594. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (54068) and (54069).
Notes of Decisions Failure to appeal the CAOs proposed action within 30 days made the decision final and may not be collaterally attacked under § 227.24(d)(ii)(B)(II). Otero v. Department of Public Welfare, 517 A.2d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Public assistance recipients must appeal within 30 days from date of county assistance officers written denial notice or the decision becomes final and immune to collateral attack. Otero v. Department of Public Welfare, 517 A.2d 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
A remand was required to determine if any grounds existed to grant an appeal nunc pro tunc, hearing officer should have made findings on the factual arguments advanced by Medical Assistance applicant to support acceptance of appeal nunc pro tunc on equitable grounds. Martin v. Department of Public Welfare, 514 A.2d 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Where notice of denial of benefits stated only: client failed to supply essential information . . ., cited irrelevant regulation, failed to indicate the essential information and failed to state the basis for denying after only 2 weeks from date of request, the notice was invalid on due process grounds and the 30 day appeal period set forth in § 275.3(b) was inapplicable. Martin v. Department of Public Welfare, 514 A.2d 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
The good faith requirement for filing an appeal, as stated in 55 Pa. Code § 275.3(b)(3)(iii) modifies all elements of 55 Pa. Code § 275.3(b). Trant v. Department of Public Welfare, 452 A.2d 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Even where notice of action has been given, an extension of the time limit for appeal from 30 days to 6 months is allowed under 55 Pa. Code § 275.3(b)(3) because of an administrative error in supplying misinformation which causes a claimant to forego an appeal. Trant v. Department of Public Welfare, 452 A.2d 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
The six month appeal period provided for in 55 Pa. Code § 275.3(b)(3) is inapplicable when written notice, though sent to an address other than that on the application for benefits, is actually received by the applicant. Clark v. Department of Public Welfare, 427 A.2d 712 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Even though a rejection notice may be deficient because sent to an address other than that on the application for benefits, the inadequacy is cured when the applicant actually receives the notice, and from the time of receipt the applicant has at best 30 days in which to appeal. Clark v. Department of Public Welfare, 427 A.2d 712 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
A CBA error indicating the incorrect year in the deadline for an application for medical assistance is not a substantial enough error to deprive the applicant of notice of his right to appeal. Crail v. Department of Public Welfare, 416 A.2d 633 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
The denial notices to applicants need not state the appeal period, since the appeal period was stated in published regulations. Zani v. Department of Public Welfare, 400 A.2d 247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Cross References The provisions of this § 275.4 issued under sections 201(2) and 423 of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. § § 201(2) and 423); amended under sections 201(2) and 403(b) of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. § § 201(2) and 403(b)).
Source The provisions of this § 275.4 amended through July 2, 1982, effective July 3, 1982, 12 Pa.B. 2066; amended December 16, 1994, effective December 17, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 6300. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (133578), (117277) to (117278), (130801) to (130802), (117281) to (117284), (181747) to (181748), (117287) to (117290), (168691) to (168692) and (175305) to (175306).
Notes of Decisions Application
Where provider hearing is conducted by hearing attorney, finder of fact is Director of Office of Hearing and Appeals, not hearing attorney. This chapter addresses hearing rights of welfare recipients and public assistance applicants, not hearing rights of providers. Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry v. Department of Public Welfare, 513 A.2d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
The provisions of this subsection (f)(5) apply to hearings involving recipients of state assistance funds, and have no application to proceedings under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966 (50 P. S. § 4101 et seq.). Tartaglia v. Department of Public Welfare, 416 A.2d 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Collection Attempts
The contract embodying the agreement between the hospital and the individual doing business as a medical assistance counseling service required the individual to process medical assistance eligibility applications for the hospitals patients and, on its face, falls far short of constituting substantial evidence to support the Department of Public Welfares determination that the individual was acting as a collection agency. The fact that an individual receives remuneration from the hospital for services has no relevance to the question of whether the individual is entitled to represent a patient before the Office of Hearing and Appeals. Nolan v. Department of Public Welfare, 673 A.2d 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Discretion
It was not an abuse of discretion for the hearing examiner to not order a medical assessment of a claimant if the claimant testified that he was not under the care of a doctor for the back injury and claimant was not taking any medication for his alleged disability other than aspirin. Morris v. Department of Public Welfare, 414 A.2d 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
General Comments
The Commonwealth Court affirmed its previous holding in Ormes v. Department of Public Welfare, 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 588, 512 A.2d 87 (1986), that this regulation is inconsistent with Pa. R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Modzelewski v. Department of Public Welfare, 531 A.2d 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Hearing Proceedings
Where the assistance office did not give the appellant an opportunity to examine materials upon which the assistance office decision was based, the computation sheets were not part of the record and the staff member directly involved in initiating the action against the recipient was not present at the hearing, the Department of Public Welfare deviated from appeal and fair hearing procedures and denied the appellant an opportunity to challenge the eligibility determination. Knox v. Secretary of Public Welfare, 573 A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
A Department of Public Welfare adjudication in which a petitioner who represented pro se requests modification of a liability assessment on the grounds that the petitioners income has decreased is not in accord with law if the hearing examiner failed to ask the petitioner to state the issues at the commencement of the hearing and failed to settle the issue of whether the petitioner had a loss of income and, if so, the effect of such loss on petitioners liability. Brandt v. Department of Public Welfare, 427 A.2d 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Reconsideration
There is no provision limiting this regulation to only non-lawyer spokespersons who do not charge for their services and there was no evidence that plaintiff, doing business as a medical assistance counseling service, was actually portraying to the public that plaintiff had the authority to practice law as prohibited by 42 Pa.C.S. § § 2524 and 7311(c). Consequently, the Department of Public Welfares interpretation of its regulations to add the condition that a spokesperson cannot receive remuneration for services in processing medical assistance applications is plainly inconsistent with this regulation and, further, constitutes impermissible rulemaking. Nolan v. Department of Public Welfare, 673 A.2d 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); appeal denied 683 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1996).
An untimely request for reconsideration, filed in reliance on this section one day before the Courts decision to invalidate this section (Ormes v. DPW, 98 Pa. Commw. 588, 591 note, 512 A.2d 87, Note 5 (1986)), was deemed to be proper for purposes of allowing the petitioner to appeal the case on the merits. Mozier v. Department of Public Welfare, 538 A.2d 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
Subsection (h)(4)(ii) is inapplicable to a case involving public facility reimbursements. Westmoreland Manor v. Department of Public Welfare, 496 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Director of Hearings and Appeals acted within the directors authority when he unilaterally, without taking additional testimony, issued a decision reversing the hearing officer. E.C.C. Retirement Village v. Department of Public Welfare, 492 A.2d 466 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
A finding of fact by the Hearing Examiner is not subject to reversal, in conformance with subsection (h)(4)(ii), if it is supported by substantial evidence. Augelli v. Department of Public Welfare, 468 A.2d 524 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Findings of fact made by the Hearing Examiner will not be subject to reversal by the Director whose role is confined to matters of law. Klingerman Nursing Center, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare, 458 A.2d 653 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
If an appellant merely indicates in a form requesting an appeal that the matter was wrongly decided, the appeal will not be dismissed. Casey v. OBannon, 536 F. Supp. 350 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
It is well within the province of the Director to reverse the hearing examiner for the purpose of upholding (1) the legal principle that approval of training programs is within the administrative discretion of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), and (2) the established departmental policy that participation in a DPW-approved program is a prerequisite to a training allowance grant. Holloway v. Department of Public Welfare, 445 A.2d 1329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
The failure of the Secretary to specify reasons, evidence and regulations in support of her decision to deny a request for consideration violated 45 CFR 205.10(a)(15) and 2 Pa.C.S. § 507, even though subsection (h)(4)(ii) is silent on the issue of what shall be included in the Secretarys response to a request for reconsideration. Heinsohn v. Department of Public Welfare, 445 A.2d 271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Under 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(f) and (h)(1) and (h)(2), the hearing examiner is required to consider all the facts in evidence at the hearing, not just the evidence before the county office. Matthews v. Department of Public Welfare, 443 A.2d 1362, 1365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Because the optional review of the decision of the hearing examiner by the Hearing and Appeals Unit does not precede the pre-termination hearing which itself provides the necessary effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting arguments and evidence orally, the optional review is consistent with principles of due process. Morris v. Department of Public Welfare, 414 A.2d 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Reversal of the decision of a hearing examiner was proper, since such decision was based solely on hearsay evidence which had been properly objected to. Beard v. Department of Public Welfare, 400 A.2d 1342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Representation
If a recipient chooses to be unrepresented by counsel and fails to present any witness on his behalf and to cross-examine other witnesses effectively, the recipient cannot lay any blame for that situation on the Department of Public Welfare. Morris v. Department of Public Welfare, 414 A.2d 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
State Regulations
A hearing officer is bound to make an adjudication in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Department of Public Welfare. Policy clarifications and HCFA Transmittals are not duly promulgated regulations and do not supersede regulations. Heffelfinger v. Department of Public Welfare, 789 A.2d 349 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
State regulations providing a county assistance office with the right to seek reconsideration by the Secretary of Department of Public Welfare do not conflict with, and therefore, are not preempted by Federal regulations under which the State welfare agency must notify a Medical Assistance recipient of a decision and their right of reconsideration, if such is available. Mosely v. Department of Public Welfare, 598 A.2d 317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991).
Time Limits
Appeal of parent from order denying expungement of report of indicated child abuse is an appeal from agency decision requiring administrative action within 90 days. Report of indicated child abuse was supported by evidence. J. L. v. Department of Public Welfare, 575 A.2d 643, 645 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
This section is invalidated, and the general provisions of 1 Pa. Code § 35.241 (relating to application for rehearing or reconsideration) should apply to the time frame for response from the agency head. Strobhar v. Department of Public Welfare, 557 A.2d 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
This section is invalidated with regard to the 15 working day period in which the Secretary is to act on reconsideration because the language of the section makes computation of timeliness nearly impossible, is inherently inconsistent and was designed to complement a previously invalidated corollary section. Strobhar v. Department of Public Welfare, 557 A.2d 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Failure of the Department of Public Welfare to act within the time period specified in subsection (b)(1) (relating to procedures) does not render its subsequent actions illegal. Houtz v. Department of Public Welfare, 401 A.2d 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 133.4 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 141.41 (relating to policy); 55 Pa. Code § 141.56 (relating to deferred referral); 55 Pa. Code § 165.81 (relating to fair hearing); 55 Pa. Code § 227.24 (relating to procedures); 55 Pa. Code § 1181.54 (relating to payment conditions related to the recipients continued need for care); 55 Pa. Code § 3490.106 (relating to hearings and appeals proceedings for reports received by ChildLine prior to July 1, 1995); 55 Pa. Code § 3490.106a (relating to hearings and appeals proceedings for indicated reports received by ChildLine after June 30, 1995); and 55 Pa. Code § 3490.192 (relating to request for a hearing from a school employe for indicated reports of student abuse).
STATEMENTS OF POLICY
§ 275.5. Settling appeals and paying retroactive benefitsstatement of policy.
(a) This statement of policy provides a means for CAOs, and other administering agencies, to settle appeals in cases where verification provided to the CAO subsequent to its adverse action on the case shows that the appellant, in fact, met the substantive conditions of eligibility during the period of time at issue in the appeal. The question on appeal, therefore, is not whether the CAO or administering agency acted properly based upon the information then available, but whether the appellant was eligible for the period of time at issue based upon evidence of eligibility the client is able to provide at or before the hearing.
(b) When a client files a timely appeal from an adverse Departmental action, the CAO shall determine whether the appellant subsequently provided acceptable verification of eligibility relating back to the effective date of the adverse action. If this requirement is met, the CAO shall restore benefits retroactive to the effective date of termination, denial, reduction or suspension of benefits. In the case of a denial of assistance, benefits will be restored retroactive to the date by which an eligibility determination should have been made if the actual date of the decision to deny benefits was delayed more than 15 days from the date of application, as specified in § 125.21(b) (relating to policy).
(c) If the verification subsequently provided by the appellant does not relate all the way back to the effective date of adverse action, but does establish eligibility as of a later date, the CAO shall restore assistance to the date on which the eligibility factor at issue in the appeal was met.
(d) The following examples are provided to illustrate how this statement of policy is to be applied:
Example No. 1
Mary Jones was sent a PA/FS 162-A Notice dated January 5, 1989, advising her that her assistance would be terminated effective January 20, 1989, based upon her failure to attend a scheduled reapplication interview and to provide verification of her households continued eligibility for AFDC, food stamps and MA. On January 25, 1989, Ms. Jones filed a timely appeal.
On February 1, 1989, prior to the hearing, Ms. Jones provided the CAO with acceptable verification establishing her households continued eligibility for Public Assistance.
Since the verification established that Ms. Jones was eligible for AFDC, food stamps and Medical Assistance as of the date the assistance was terminated, the CAO would rescind its January 5, 1989, termination action and restore benefits to Ms. Jones retroactive to January 20, 1989. In this case, the verification provided by Ms. Jones subsequent to the closing action proved her eligibility for the period of time at issue in the appeal.
Example No. 2
Sam Smith applied for assistance on February 2, 1989, but was unable to obtain documentary proof that the market value of his car was actually less than the book value, which exceeded the $1,500 equity limit. (None of the excess value could be applied to the general resource limit, because Mr. Smith has other resources which equal the resource limit.) On February 10, 1989, the CAO issued a notice denying Mr. Smiths application.
On February 28, 1989, Mr. Smith filed a timely appeal. Prior to the hearing, Mr. Smith provided the CAO with a statement from a mechanic showing that his car was worth only $1,000 when the mechanic last saw it on February 1, 1989. Upon receipt of this verification, and assuming Mr. Smith met the other conditions of eligibility, the CAO would promptly authorize assistance retroactive to February 10, 1989.
If the statement submitted by Mr. Smith had indicated that the mechanic first saw the car on February 27, 1989, and estimated its value at $1,000, the CAO would authorize assistance retroactive to February 27, 1989, the date when Mr. Smith first met the eligibility condition at issue in the appeal.
Example No. 3
Maria Mendez moved from Puerto Rico to Pennsylvania in February 1989 and on March 3, 1989, applied for assistance for herself and her three children. By notice dated March 10, 1989, the CAO denied Ms. Mendezs application based upon information that her Public Assistance case in Puerto Rico was still open.
Ms. Mendez filed a timely appeal on March 25, 1989, and subsequently provided the CAO with acceptable verification that she had not received any assistance benefits from Puerto Rico since she moved to Pennsylvania. Upon receipt of this verification, and assuming Ms. Mendez and her children met the other conditions of eligibility, the CAO would immediately authorize assistance retroactive to March 10, 1989.
Example No. 4
Bill Brown applied for GA benefits on January 5, 1989, after his unemployment compensation benefits ran out. At his prescreen interview, a CAO worker explained to Mr. Brown that if he could prove a work history of 48 months out of the last 8 years, he would qualify for Chronically Needy GA benefits based upon exhaustion of his unemployment compensation. The worker further explained what verification Mr. Brown would need to prove his work history and informed him that the CAO would help him obtain this information should he require help.
Mr. Brown did not submit verification of his work history. On January 20, 1989, his application for assistance was denied. Mr. Brown received 90 days of Transitionally Needy GA benefits within the year preceding his application.
Mr. Brown filed a timely appeal on January 22, 1989, and on January 25, 1989, he provided the CAO with acceptable verification of his work history. Upon receipt of this information, and assuming that Mr. Brown met the other conditions of eligibility, the CAO would authorize CN benefits effective January 20, 1989.
Source The provisions of this § 275.5 adopted July 7, 1989, effective July 8, 1989, 19 Pa.B. 2959.
Subchapter B. ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION
HEARINGS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
275.11. General policy.
275.12. Definitions.
HEARING REQUIREMENTS
275.21. Scheduling of the hearing.
275.22. Combining a fair hearing and an administrative disqualification hearing.
275.23. Postponement.
275.24. Participation while awaiting hearing.
275.25. Rights of the individual at the hearing.
275.26. Conducting the hearing.
275.27. Presence at the hearing.
HEARING RESULTS
275.31. Hearing decision.
275.32. Finding of an intentional program violation.
275.33. Finding that no intentional program violation occurred.
WAIVER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DISQUALIFICATION HEARING
275.41. Waiver of an administrative disqualification hearing.
DISQUALIFICATION
275.51. Imposing the disqualification.
RECONSIDERATION OR APPEAL
OF HEARING DECISION
275.61. Right to request reconsideration or right to appeal, or both.
Authority The provisions of this Subchapter B issued under sections 201(2) and 403(b) of the Public Welfare Code (62 P. S. § § 201(2) and 403(b)), unless otherwise noted.
Source The provisions of this Subchapter B adopted December 16, 1994, effective December 17, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 6300, unless otherwise noted.
Cross References This subchapter cited in 55 Pa. Code § 255.1 (relating to restitution and disqualification hearings).
§ 275.11. General policy.
(a) The Office of Hearings and Appeals is responsible for conducting administrative disqualification hearings for individuals alleged to have committed an intentional program violation as defined under § § 255.2 and 501.1 (relating to definitions; and general provisions), which incorporates 7 CFR 273.16(c) (relating to disqualification for intentional program violation), when one of the following exists:
(1) The Office of Inspector General did not refer the case to the criminal court system.
(2) The Office of Inspector General referred the case to the criminal court system and the district attorney declined to prosecute.
(3) The Office of Inspector General referred the case to the criminal court system and the court took no action within a reasonable period, resulting in case withdrawal by the Office of Inspector General.
(b) The Office of Inspector General may initiate administrative disqualification hearing procedures despite the current eligibility of the individual alleged to have committed an intentional program violation.
(c) The Office of Inspector General will not initiate an administrative disqualification hearing against an individual whose case is currently being referred for prosecution or after any action taken against the accused individual by the prosecutor or court of appropriate jurisdiction, if the factual issues of the case arise out of the same, or related, circumstances.
(d) An administrative disqualification hearing will not preclude future prosecution if the Office of Inspector General later determines that prosecution is advisable.
§ 275.12. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
DirectorThe head of the Office of Hearings and Appeals who will affirm, amend, reverse or remand the hearing officers decision in an administrative disqualification hearing.
Good causeThe term includes serious illness, accident, death or physical or mental handicap making it unreasonable for the individual to be present at the hearing.
Hearing officerA person designated by the Department to conduct administrative disqualification hearings and render decisions.
Hearing recordAn official record containing the testimony recorded at the proceeding, and the exhibits, papers and requests filed in the proceeding.
IndividualA person alleged to have committed an intentional program violation.
Intentional program violationAn action by an individual as defined under § § 255.2 and 501.1 (relating to definitions; and general provisions) which incorporates 7 CFR 273.16(c) (relating to disqualification for intentional program violation).
Office of Inspector GeneralThe agency within the Executive Office of the Governor designated to pursue cases of intentional program violations.
HEARING REQUIREMENTS
§ 275.21. Scheduling of the hearing.
(a) The Department will schedule all hearings. If a telephone hearing is scheduled, the individual will be given the opportunity to request a face-to-face hearing, which the Department will grant.
(b) The Department will send a hearing notice to each individual at least 30 days before the hearing date. The Department will send the notice by certified mailreturn receipt requestedor by another method as long as the Department or the Office of Inspector General obtains proof of receipt. The notice will contain:
(1) The date and time of the hearing. If scheduled as a face-to-face hearing, the location shall be specified.
(2) The charges against the individual.
(3) A summary of the evidence, and how and where it can be examined.
(4) A statement that, if the individual fails to be present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing without good cause, the hearing decision will be based solely on the testimony and exhibits provided by the Office of Inspector General.
(5) A statement that, to receive a new hearing, the individual or individuals representative has 10 days from the hearing date to present sufficient reasons to show good cause for failing to be present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing.
(6) A statement that the Office of Inspector General and the individual are each entitled to one postponement of the hearing as described under § 275.23 (relating to postponement). The individuals representative may request the postponement on behalf of the individual. Subject to § 275.23(b), the request shall be made at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing date.
(7) A description of the disqualification penalties and a statement of which penalty applies.
(8) A listing of the individuals rights as contained under § 275.25 (relating to rights of the individual at the hearing).
(9) A statement that the hearing does not preclude the State or Federal government from prosecuting the individual for an intentional program violation or from collecting the overpaid benefits.
(10) A listing of persons or organizations that provide free legal representation to an individual alleged to have committed an intentional program violation.
(11) A copy of the hearing procedures.
(12) An explanation that the individual may waive an administrative disqualification hearing as described under § 275.41 (relating to waiver of administrative disqualification hearing).
(13) A statement of the individuals right to remain silent concerning the charges and that anything said or signed by the individual concerning the charges may be used against the individual in a court of law.
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.41 (relating to waiver of administrative disqualification hearing).
§ 275.22. Combining a fair hearing and an administrative disqualification hearing.
(a) The Department may combine a fair hearing, as described under Subchapter A (relating to appeal and fair hearing), and an administrative disqualification hearing into one hearing if the issues originate from the same or related circumstances. The budget group/household will receive at least 30 days notice that the Department will combine the hearings.
(b) The Department will apply the regulations under this subchapter when the hearings are combined.
(c) If the Department combines the hearings to adjudicate the claim amount and to adjudicate whether an intentional program violation occurred, the budget group/household will not be entitled to a subsequent fair hearing on the claim amount.
(d) One hearing officer, as designated by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, may preside over the combined fair and administrative disqualification hearing.
§ 275.23. Postponement.
(a) The Office of Inspector General and the individual are each entitled to one postponement of the scheduled hearing. The individuals representative may request the postponement on behalf of the individual. The request may be oral or written. An oral request for postponement shall be made at least 10 days before the hearing date. A written request for postponement shall be postmarked at least 10 days before the hearing date. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), a request for postponement that does not meet these time frames will be denied.
(b) Within 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing, the individual or the individuals representative may present, either orally or in writing, good cause for failing to meet the postponement requirements under subsection (a). Based on this information, the hearing officer may postpone the hearing.
(c) The hearing will not be postponed for more than 30 days from the date the Department scheduled the original hearing.
(d) The time limit for rendering a decision as specified under § 275.31(b) (relating to hearing decision) will be extended for as many days as the hearing is postponed up to a maximum of 30 days.
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.21 (relating to scheduling of the hearing); and 55 Pa. Code § 275.31 (relating to hearing decision).
§ 275.24. Participation while awaiting hearing.
A pending administrative disqualification hearing will not affect the right of the individual or budget group/household to be determined eligible and to receive benefits. The Department will determine the eligibility in the same manner it would be determined for another budget group/household.
§ 275.25. Rights of the individual at the hearing.
At the hearing, the individual has the following rights:
(1) To present a defense or have a defense presented by legal counsel, another authorized representative, relative, friend or other spokesperson.
(2) To call witnesses to testify.
(3) To present arguments without undue influence.
(4) To question or refute testimony or evidence, including an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
(5) To present evidence to establish pertinent facts and circumstances in the case.
(6) To refuse to answer questions during the hearing.
(7) To remain silent concerning the charges because anything said or signed concerning the charges can be used against the individual in a court of law.
(8) To examine, upon request, the Office of Inspector Generals evidence before the hearing as well as during the hearing.
(i) The Department will make available, upon request by the individual, the contents of the case record that the Office of Inspector General will use at the hearing.
(ii) The Department will provide, upon request, and without charge, copies of case record material that the Office of Inspector General will use at the hearing.
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.21 (relating to scheduling of the hearing).
§ 275.26. Conducting the hearing.
An impartial hearing officer will conduct the hearing. The hearing officer will do the following:
(1) Administer oaths and affirmations.
(2) Advise the parties that this is an administrative hearing.
(3) Advise the individual of the right to remain silent when asked a question during the hearing.
(4) Ensure that relevant issues are considered.
(5) Mark and admit relevant exhibits into evidence.
(6) Conduct an orderly hearing and ensure that the parties due process rights are protected.
(7) Obtain, at the Departments expense, medical assessments when determined necessary by the hearing officer and admit the assessments into the record.
(8) Provide a hearing record and recommend the final hearing decision to the Director.
(9) Ensure that the individual or the individuals representative is given adequate time to be present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing.
(i) For a telephone hearing, the hearing officer will make, at minimum, three attempts to contact the individual or the individuals representative in the 20-minute period following the scheduled time of the hearing before conducting the hearing without the individual or the individuals representative being present.
(ii) For a face-to-face hearing, the hearing officer will delay the hearing 20 minutes from the scheduled time of the hearing before conducting the hearing without the individual or the individuals representative being present for the hearing.
§ 275.27. Presence at the hearing.
(a) The Office of Inspector General and the individual or the individuals representative will be present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing.
(b) Friends or relatives of the individual may be present for a telephone or face-to-face hearing. The hearing officer may limit the number of persons present at a face-to-face hearing if space limitations exist.
(c) If the individual or the individuals representative fails to be present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing without good cause, the hearing officer will conduct the hearing without the individual or individuals representative being present. Even though the individual is not present or represented, the hearing officer will consider carefully the evidence and make a determination. If the hearing officer finds that the individual committed an intentional program violation but later determines that there was good cause for not being present, the Director will nullify the decision. The hearing officer who originally ruled on the case may conduct the new hearing.
(d) The individual or the individuals representative has 10 days from the hearing date to show good cause for failing to be present in order to receive a new hearing. The hearing officer will enter the good cause decision into the hearing record.
HEARING RESULTS
§ 275.31. Hearing decision.
(a) The hearing officer will have the delegated authority from the Secretary to make a decision on the administrative disqualification hearing.
(b) The Departments Office of Hearings and Appeals will issue a hearing decision within 90 days from the date it sent the hearing notice except as described under § 275.23(d) (relating to postponement).
(c) The hearing officer will base the hearing decision on clear and convincing evidence.
(d) The hearing officers decision will:
(1) Summarize the facts.
(2) Specify the reasons for the decision.
(3) Identify the regulations supporting the decision.
(4) Identify the supporting evidence.
(5) Respond to reasoned arguments made by the parties.
(6) Specify the period of disqualification if the individual is found to have committed an intentional program violation.
(7) Specify the claim amount, if appropriate.
(e) The Departments Office of Hearings and Appeals will send the hearing decision to the individual and parties present for the telephone or face-to-face hearing. The decision will include notification of the individuals right to request a reconsideration or to appeal the decision as described under § 275.61 (relating to right to request reconsideration or right to appeal, or both).
(f) The transcript or recording of testimony, exhibits or official reports introduced at the hearing, together with the papers and requests filed in the proceeding will be available upon request to the individual or the individuals representative at a reasonable time and place for copying and inspection.
Cross References The provisions of this § 275.32 amended July 6, 2001, effective July 7, 2001, and apply retroactively to February 1, 1996, for the Food Stamp Program and retroactively to March 4, 1996, for the TANF and GA Cash Assistance Programs, 31 Pa.B. 3538. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (220460) to (220461).
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.33 (relating to finding that no intentional program violation occurred).
§ 275.33. Finding that no intentional program violation occurred.
(a) If the hearing officer determines that the individual owes the claim amount but that the individual did not commit an intentional program violation, the hearing officer will order the individual to repay the claim amount as described under § § 255.4 and 501.1 (relating to procedures; and general provisions), which incorporates 7 CFR 273.18(d) (relating to claims against households).
(b) The Office of Inspector General will send a demand letter for payment of the claim as described under § 275.32(c) (relating to finding of an intentional program violation).
WAIVER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION
HEARING
§ 275.41. Waiver of administrative disqualification hearing.
(a) The individual may waive the administrative disqualification hearing. The noticesee § 275.21 (relating to scheduling of the hearing)giving the option to waive the administrative disqualification hearing will include:
(1) A waiver for the individual to sign and the date the Department must receive the signed waiver to avoid conducting the hearing. The payment name/head of household also shall sign the waiver if the individual is not the payment name/head of the household.
(2) A statement that the individual has the right to remain silent concerning the charges and that anything said or signed concerning the charges can be used in a court of law.
(3) A statement that the waiver will result in disqualification and a reduction in benefits for the period of disqualification, even if the individual does not admit to the facts as presented by the Office of Inspector General.
(4) A statement giving the individual the opportunity to clarify whether the individual admits to the facts as presented by the Office of Inspector General.
(5) A Department telephone number to contact for more information.
(6) A statement that the remaining budget group/household members, if any, are responsible for payment of the resulting claim.
(b) If the individual signs the waiver and the Department receives the waiver within the specified time frame, the Department will impose the disqualification as described under § 275.51 (relating to imposing the disqualification).
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.21 (relating to scheduling of the hearing).
DISQUALIFICATION
§ 275.51. Imposing the disqualification.
(a) An individual found to have committed an intentional program violation or who waived an administrative disqualification hearing is ineligible for program benefits as described under § § 255.1 and 501.13 (relating to restitution and disqualification policy; and intentional program violation disqualification).
(b) The Department will disqualify only the individual found to have committed an intentional program violation or who signed the waiver of an administrative disqualification hearing, and not the entire household.
(c) The Department will impose the disqualification within the time frame described under § § 255.1 and 501.13.
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.41 (relating to waiver of administrative disqualification hearing).
RECONSIDERATION OR APPEAL OF
HEARING DECISION
§ 275.61. Right to request reconsideration or right to appeal, or both.
(a) One of the following actions may be taken regarding the hearing decision:
(1) Either party to the hearing may request a reconsideration of the decision by the Secretary as described under 1 Pa. Code § 35.241 (relating to application for rehearing or reconsideration). The request shall be in writing, state the reason for the reconsideration request, and be postmarked no later than 15 days from the date of hearing decision.
(2) Either the individual or the individuals representative may file a petition for review of the hearing decision with Commonwealth Court.
(b) No further administrative review procedure exists after an adverse decision by the Secretary.
Cross References This section cited in 55 Pa. Code § 275.31 (relating to hearing decision).
APPENDIX A [Reserved]
Source The provisions of this Appendix A reserved July 11, 1986, effective July 12, 1986, 16 Pa.B. 2524. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (42423) to (42428).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.