Opinion
G062533
06-18-2024
JAMES H. NGUYEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant and Respondent.
James H. Nguyen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown, Karen L. Donald and Julie T. Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-202101232711 David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed.
James H. Nguyen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown, Karen L. Donald and Julie T. Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
DELANEY, J.
In April 2018, James H. Nguyen applied to the CalFresh program for nutrition benefits. Over two years later, his application was denied for exceeding income eligibility limits. The denial was upheld by the California Department of Social Services (the Department), State Hearings Division. To challenge this decision, Nguyen filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court. The court denied the petition on the same ground. Nguyen now appeals the judgment denying his petition. He contends he was entitled to certain deductions that, if applied, would have made him eligible for CalFresh benefits. In the alternative, Nguyen argues that even under the Department's calculations, he qualified for benefits starting in October 2018, when the net monthly income limit increased by $20. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
The CalFresh program enables low-income California households to receive nutrition benefits under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.; SNAP). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 18900.1, 18900.2.) All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS
Nguyen, who is in his seventies, lives with his wife and minor grandchild. On April 20, 2018, Nguyen applied to the CalFresh program under the eligibility requirements for a three-person household with an elderly or disabled household member. That same day, the Orange County Social Services Agency (the County) canceled his application, noting internally that it had been "[o]pened in [e]rror." The County, however, did not send Nguyen notice of its action. In 2020, the Department granted Nguyen's request for a hearing - the first of three administrative hearings, which we summarize below.
I. The First Administrative Hearing
The first hearing was held in August 2020 before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sarah Kim. At issue was the County's cancellation of his application without a "Notice of Action." The County confirmed the application was canceled in error and that no "Notice of Action" had been issued. The parties stipulated the County would process the "application and determination eligibility, effective that application date." Based on this stipulation, ALJ Kim granted Nguyen's claim and "ordered that the County rescind the adverse actions and provide all appropriate retroactive benefits in the CalFresh program, as follows: [¶] . . . [¶] The County shall determine the claimant's CalFresh eligibility, effective the April 20, 2018 application date, allowing the claimant an opportunity to submit verifications as needed, and shall issue all appropriate and retroactive benefits, as otherwise eligible." This decision was adopted by the Department.
II. The Second Administrative Hearing
In September 2020, the County denied the application on the ground Nguyen's household income "exceed[ed] the maximum level for benefit issuance." Nguyen requested and received a hearing to dispute the denial.
The second hearing was held in February 2021 before ALJ Jonathan Huang. In a written decision, ALJ Huang denied Nguyen's claim and found the County properly denied his application for CalFresh benefits. ALJ Huang stated the net monthly income limit for a three-person household as of April 20, 2018, was $1,702, and concluded Nguyen's household net monthly income of $1,712 was $10 over the limit. ALJ Huang arrived at the figure of $1,712 by taking $2,161 (reasonably anticipated monthly unearned income), deducting $160 (standard deduction) and $289.50 (excess medical expense deduction), and rounding the net total of $1,711.50 up to $1,712. ALJ Huang determined Nguyen was not entitled to deductions for shelter or dependent care expenses.
The Department adopted ALJ Huang's decision. Nguyen requested a rehearing, which was denied.
III. The Third Administrative Hearing
In July 2021, Nguyen requested another hearing to dispute the denial of his 2018 application. This final administrative hearing occurred in September before ALJ Tatiana Daza. ALJ Daza dismissed the claim "for lack of state hearing jurisdiction" because Nguyen was raising the same issues that ALJ Huang had already adjudicated. The Department adopted ALJ Daza's decision. Nguyen's request for a rehearing was denied.
ALJ Daza asked if Nguyen's hearing request also concerned a CalFresh application submitted on June 15, 2021. Nguyen denied filing an application on that date, so ALJ Daza dismissed that portion of the hearing request.
IV. The Writ Proceeding
In November 2021, Nguyen filed in the superior court a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5, naming the Department as respondent. Specifically, Nguyen claimed he should have received a deduction for dependent care expenses. The trial court applied the independent judgment standard to review the Department's decision and denied the petition. The court agreed with ALJ Huang's calculations, determined Nguyen was not entitled to deductions for shelter or dependent care expenses, and concluded he exceeded the income limit for CalFresh benefits. Nguyen timely appealed.
Although neither side raises this point, we note the petition should have named as respondent the Department's director, not the Department itself. (§ 10962 ["The director shall be the sole respondent in such proceedings"].)
DISCUSSION
Nguyen contends the trial court improperly denied his petition "without providing a legal basis." According to him, the Department miscalculated his net monthly income by disallowing a deduction for dependent care expenses and applying an incorrect lower number for the medical expense deduction. Nguyen further argues that even if the Department's calculations were correct, he qualified for benefits beginning October 1, 2018, when the net monthly income limit for a three-person household increased from $1,702 to $1,732. After thoroughly reviewing the record on appeal, we disagree.
I. Standard of Review
A CalFresh applicant may, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, petition the trial court "for a review of the entire proceedings in the matter, upon questions of law involved in the case." (§ 10962.) The trial court reviews the final decision under the independent review standard. (Frink v. Prod (1982) 31 Cal.3d 166, 172, 179.)
Generally, "[w]e review 'the record to determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence.'" (Christensen v. Lightbourne (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1251.) But "'where the facts are undisputed, the reviewing court faces a question of law. "On questions of law arising in mandate proceedings, we exercise independent judgment." [Citation.] In those circumstances, the trial and appellate courts perform the same function.'" (Ibid.) "Interpretation of a statute or regulation is a question of law subject to independent review," which we apply "'without reference to the trial court's actions.'" (Ibid.)
II. Dependent Care Expense Deduction
Nguyen argues he was entitled to a deduction of $232, representing monthly costs of caring for his grandchild. This figure, according to Nguyen, covered $50 (school supplies and trips), $60 (gas), $45 (car insurance), $17 (DMV taxes), and $60 (lunch). If these costs were properly deductible, Nguyen fell within the net income eligibility limit (effective for April 20, 2018) and qualified for CalFresh benefits. Nguyen, however, was not entitled to any deduction for dependent care expenses.
In an e-mail, Nguyen claimed monthly dependent care expenses of $250 but did not provide a breakdown of costs for this higher figure.
Although the federal government provides the SNAP benefits, the program is administered by the states themselves. (Ortega v. Johnson (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 552, 557-558.) In California, county welfare departments administer the CalFresh program (id. at p. 558), and the Department oversees the program and promulgates regulations for its implementation (id. at pp. 557, 558). State programs, such as the CalFresh program, must adhere to federal processing and regulating requirements. (See 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(b) ["Part 273 describes the eligibility criteria to be applied by State agencies and related processing requirements and standards" for SNAP]; § 18901 ["The eligibility of households shall be determined to the extent permitted by federal law"].) Regulations promulgated by the Department, which are contained in its Manual of Policies and Procedures (id. at p. 557), therefore must adhere to federal regulations.
As required by federal regulations, a CalFresh applicant may deduct dependent care expenses "when necessary for a household member to search for, accept or continue employment, comply with [certain] employment and training requirements . . ., or attend training or pursue education that is preparatory to employment." (7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3).) At the second administrative hearing, Nguyen confirmed no one in his household was working, seeking employment, or training for employment. He therefore did not qualify for a dependent care deduction.
Nguyen insists that because he and his wife are elderly and exempt from the work requirements for receiving CalFresh benefits, he can deduct dependent care expenses. He is mistaken. Nguyen is correct that elderly household members are exempt from complying with work requirements as a condition for eligibility for CalFresh benefits. (7 C.F.R. § 273.7(b)(1)(i).) But Nguyen offers no authority -nor could we find any - to support his contention that an elderly person is also exempt from the employment requirements to qualify for a dependent care expense deduction.
III. Excess Medical Expense Deduction
ALJ Huang credited Nguyen with actual monthly medical expenses of $324.50. After subtracting $35 from that figure, ALJ Huang allowed Nguyen a deduction of $289.50 for monthly excess medical expenses. Nguyen contends this was error because he was entitled a deduction of the full cost of medical expenses. If the extra $35 was properly deductible, Nguyen fell within the net income eligibility limit (effective for April 20, 2018) and qualified for CalFresh benefits. Nguyen, however, was not entitled to the extra deduction. Simply put, an applicant may deduct "[t]hat portion of medical expenses in excess of $35 per month" incurred by any qualifying elderly or disabled household member. (7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3), italics added.)
Elsewhere in the record, Nguyen claimed monthly medical expenses of $324 and $326.50. We need not, however, determine the precise amount. Using any of these figures, our analysis remains the same.
IV. October 2018 Increase in Net Monthly Income Limit
Nguyen contends that, even if his net monthly income was $1,712, he was eligible for benefits beginning October 1, 2018, when the net income eligibility limit increased to $1,732, as stated in the Department's All County Information Notice I-54-18.
According to the Department, this contention fails for two reasons. First, Nguyen contends - without citation to authority - that the Department was required to "retroactively reprocess" his denied April 2018 application based on future net income eligibility in October 2018. To the contrary, a household found to be ineligible must file a new application to participate in the CalFresh program (7 C.F.R. § 273.2(g)(3)) and the appellate record does not show Nguyen filed a new application after the income eligibility limits increased. Second, Nguyen fails to cite facts in the record showing his household net monthly income on October 1, 2018, and without this information, his eligibility as of that date cannot be assessed.
We agree with the Department that Nguyen's contention fails, albeit for a different reason. At the first administrative hearing, the parties stipulated the County would process Nguyen's application "effective the April 20, 2018 application date." The record indicates that Nguyen first argued his application should be processed under the October 1, 2018, eligibility standards after ALJ Huang denied his claim. Because Nguyen did not raise the issue to ALJ Huang at the second administrative hearing, he has forfeited the issue on appeal. (Clary v. City of Crescent City (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 274, 294.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J., MOTOIKE, J.