Opinion
No. 2086 C.D. 2013
06-13-2014
Sean M. Donahue, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent
OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sean M. Donahue (Donahue), proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the October 11, 2013 final administrative order of the Department of Public Welfare's (DPW) Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA), affirming the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) to deny Donahue cash assistance (CA) benefits. We conclude that the issues presented on appeal do not fall within this Court's limited scope of review.
In June 2013, Donahue submitted an application for CA benefits at the Luzerne County Assistance Office (CAO). On June 19, 2013, the CAO denied the application, finding that Donahue did not meet the eligibility requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), State Blind Pension, or the Refugee Cash Assistance programs. Further, the CAO stated that CA benefits from the General Assistance (GA) program (GA-CA) have been eliminated through legislative action effective August 1, 2012. Donahue requested an appeal with the BHA, which appointed an ALJ to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
At the hearing, Jane O'Donovan, income maintenance supervisor, testified on behalf of the CAO. She stated that Donahue was not eligible for GA-CA benefits because that program was discontinued at the end of July 2012, and Donahue does not meet the eligibility criteria for CA under any other program. Specifically, O'Donovan stated that Donahue does not qualify for TANF because he lives alone and does not have children; he does not qualify for State Blind Pension because he is not blind; and he does not qualify for Refugee Cash Assistance because he is not a refugee. O'Donovan stated that these are the only CA programs that are available under Pennsylvania law at this time. (Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 7-9.)
Donahue testified from a written statement that he prepared, which began as follows:
Okay. So my complaint is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has maliciously denied me access to cash assistance while simultaneously forbidding me from utilizing federally funded unemployment offices, employment development programs managed through those offices, and all Pennsylvania NGO [Non-government organization] workforce investment entities. It has justified doing so on the false claim that my military background has rendered me a socially disabled threat to the general wellbeing of government officials, appointed administrators, civil servants and police. Commonwealth Social Services Personnel refuse to insure [sic] that I only seek gainful employment from employers who pay me for my graduate level insights utilizing my Master's degree in statistics and internal affairs.(N.T. at 10-11.)
Donahue then testified to "a list of pertinent facts," which include the following: he received a Master's degree in statistics from Columbia University in 2005; he was honorably discharged from the military; employees of federally funded entities in Luzerne County told him that they have no need for his military skills or degree in statistics; he is qualified for jobs but the Commonwealth cites his military background as a disability that renders him a threat to society and denies him access to government buildings; he volunteered to do work for free but was denied that opportunity; the Department of Labor and Industry informed him that it will not pay for him to obtain additional education; he requested, received, and audited records and discovered that federal funds are available and are being spent in an improper manner; he believes that many governmental agencies are impeding his pursuit of employment and punishing him by reporting him to the authorities; and the government and the police have sued and arrested him without any basis to do so. Donahue stated that, for these reasons, he is entitled to CA benefits or money to continue his education. (N.T. at 10-20.)
During the hearing, the ALJ informed Donahue that his jurisdiction is limited and that he does not have the authority to address the issues that Donahue has raised. The ALJ recommended that Donahue seek legal counsel and referred him to places where he could receive pro bono legal help. (N.T. at 21-24, 29.)
On October 11, 2013, the ALJ issued an adjudication upholding the decision of the CAO to deny Donahue CA benefits. The ALJ found that Donahue resides in a one-person household, is not blind, and is not a refugee. (Finding of Fact No. 2.) Citing various regulations, the ALJ explained that TANF is intended for people who have children and that benefits are available for families with dependent children, specified relatives of the children, and pregnant women. The ALJ further explained that the GA-CA program was eliminated as part of the Pennsylvania budget process, effective August 1, 2012. The ALJ concluded that because Donahue resides in a one-person household, is not blind, and is not a refugee, the CAO properly denied him CA benefits on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for any programs that remain available. (ALJ's Adjudication, at 4.)
On the same date that the ALJ rendered its adjudication, the BHA issued a final administrative order affirming the ALJ's decision. Donahue filed a timely appeal with this Court.
Our scope of review in appeals from a final administrative order from DPW is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with law, and whether the necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence. Lancashire Hall Nursing & Rehabilitation Center v. Department of Public Welfare, 995 A.2d 540, 542 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Entitled "scope of review," Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1551 provides that "[r]eview of quasijudicial orders shall be conducted by the court on the record made before the government unit. No question shall be heard or considered by the court which was not raised before the government unit." Pa.R.A.P. 1551.
On appeal, Donahue renews the factual allegations that he testified to at the hearing. Relying on these facts, Donahue asks this Court to declare that he is in a "quasi state of disability that [was] manufactured by state actors." (Donahue's brief at 28-29). Donahue also asks this Court to order DPW and other governmental agencies, including the City of Hazleton, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and Department of Labor and Industry, to pay him CA and disability benefits.
Notably, Donahue does not make any argument that the procedure of the hearing or any substantive provision of Pennsylvania statutory law or DPW's regulations related to CA benefits (or the other assistance programs that DPW administers) are unconstitutional. In addition, Donahue does not contend that the BHA's order was not in accordance with the legal framework for determining eligibility for CA benefits, nor does he argue that the ALJ's necessary findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
As observed by the ALJ, Donahue's contentions could not be addressed during the proceedings below, and they raise no issues that fall within this Court's limited scope of review.
Accordingly, we must dismiss Donahue's appeal. PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2014, the appeal of Sean M. Donahue (Donahue) from the October 11, 2013 final administrative order of the Department of Public Welfare's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals is hereby dismissed.
See, e.g., Washington v. Department of Public Welfare, 71 A.3d 1070, 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (observing that the Act of June 30, 2012, P.L. 668, No. 80 "[e]liminated the General Assistance program of cash benefits"); 55 Pa. Code §145.41 (stating that TANF "is intended to be made available for families who meet the established eligibility requirements as provided for in this chapter and who have children under 18 years of age or under 19 years of age if the child is a full-time student in secondary school or the equivalent level of a vocational or technical school and reasonably expected to complete the program before reaching age 19."); 55 Pa. Code §293.1 ("The administration of the Refugee Assistance Program is governed by Federal regulations found at 45 C.F.R 400.1—400.62, 400.200—400.300, 401.2 and 401.12, which are hereby incorporated by reference") and 45 C.F.R. 400.2 (defining "refugee" through cross-reference to mean a person who cannot return to his/her country of nationality for certain, enumerated reasons); 55 Pa. Code §451.1 ("Article V of the Public Welfare Code (62 P.S. §§501—515), provides a pension to blind residents of this Commonwealth.").