Opinion
No. 460 C.D. 2012
02-22-2013
Margaret Adams, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
Petitioner Margaret Adams (Adams) petitions for review of an order of the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), which denied Adams' request for reconsideration of a Final Administrative Action order (final order) of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) of DPW's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA). The CALJ's final order affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), denying Adams' application for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
SNAP is the present name applied to the program formerly known as "food stamps."
The record indicates that on October 17, 2011, the Berks County Assistance Office (BCAO) received Adams' application for SNAP benefits. On October 27, 2011, BCAO sent a notice to Adams informing her of its determination that she is not eligible for SNAP benefits because her "total net monthly income is greater than the income limit for the number of persons included in [her] benefit." BCAO received a letter from Adams on November 4, 2011, in which Adams stated:
I disagree with the fact that I cannot receive any Food Stamps. My future ex-husband gets them however, I have been in formed [sic] by him that I am not privileged to them or the food he buys with them because the Food Stamps have HIS name on them.(Certified Record (C.R.), Item no. 2, first attachment.) BCAO regarded the letter as an appeal of the ineligibility determination and scheduled a telephone hearing on the matter. The hearing transcript confirms the substance of Adams' letter: Adams' main complaint was not the denial of her application for SNAP benefits. Rather Adams' estranged husband had applied for and was receiving SNAP benefits for the entire family, but, according to Adams, he would not share the benefits with her even though she shared custody of their two children. (Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 6.) Adams acknowledged that her children were the recipients of SNAP benefits based upon their father's application and household eligibility. (N.T. at 15.) Adams reiterated that she was not seeking to challenge the eligibility determination, but rather, she was seeking an order directing her estranged husband to share the SNAP benefits.
The SNAP handbook clearly states that he is to be informed of his responsibility to share food that is meant for the children even when they are not in his custody.
Robert N. Adams Jr is in violation of using the food stamps to further his own pantry not the stomachs of his own children.
In an order dated December 20, 2011, the ALJ dismissed Adams' appeal of the non-eligibility notice. The ALJ concluded that the relief Adams was seeking—an order directing her estranged husband to share the SNAP benefits he was receiving—was not a matter addressed in the applicable SNAP regulations, and that he and the BHA lacked jurisdiction over the issue Adams raised in her appeal and in the course of the hearing.
The CALJ issued a final order on December 30, 2011, affirming the ALJ's decision. The final order indicated that Adams could file a request for reconsideration of the final order with the Secretary of DPW, but that the filing of a request for reconsideration would not alter the thirty-day appeal period within which she must file an appeal with this Court. Adams filed a request for reconsideration on January 12, 2012. On February 17, 2012, the Secretary of DPW issued an order denying Adams' request for reconsideration. Adams then filed a document entitled "Appeal of Administrative Law Judge Determination" (Appeal Document). This Court accepted this document as a timely appeal of the Secretary's denial of reconsideration, but in her Appeal Document and her brief, Adams addresses the merits of the CALJ's final order rather than the Secretary's decision denying reconsideration.
Our standard of review of a decision denying reconsideration is limited to considering whether the Secretary abused his discretion in denying reconsideration. West Penn Power Co. v. Pa. Pub. Utility Comm'n, 659 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). An abuse of discretion occurs only when a decision reflects bad faith, fraud, capricious action, or an abuse of power. Id. at 1065.
Adams does not offer any argument suggesting that the Secretary's order reflects an abuse of discretion. Rather, Adams reasserts the arguments regarding her complaints concerning her estranged husband's failure to share the family's SNAP benefits. Even if Adams had included the appropriate argument in her brief specifically addressing the sole question of whether the Secretary abused his discretion in denying reconsideration, we perceive no apparent abuse of discretion in the Secretary's decision. As indicated above, the CALJ and ALJ addressed the matter that Adams presented—an appeal of an eligibility determination. For the reasons expressed above, the adjudicators did not delve into the peripheral matters Adams sought to raise in her appeal to the BHA.
Adams points to various SNAP policies which indeed appear to suggest that she could be successful if she initiates a challenge to her estranged husband's receipt of the SNAP benefits. (See Petitioner's Br. at 11.) Adams, however, initiated this action as an application for SNAP benefits in her own right, and the ALJ, CALJ, and the Secretary appropriately confined their analysis based upon the nature of the proceeding she initiated. Adams' action did not name her estranged husband as a potential interested party, nor would we expect that to be the case, although we note that he would have an interest in the outcome of such proceedings and would be entitled to an opportunity to be heard. In other words, Adams chose the wrong legal path to seek to challenge her estranged husband's receipt of the family's SNAP benefits. The Secretary's order denying reconsideration, however, also included the following language:
Nevertheless, the Berks County Assistance Office is directed to review the SNAP benefits of Margaret Adams and Robert N. Adams, Jr., and the attached Order of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas to confirm that the SNAP benefits were issued consistent with Operations Memorandum SNAP OPS100205, dated March 2, 2010. The Berks County Assistance Office shall issue new notices as necessary.Similarly, while we cannot afford any relief to Adams in this particular appeal, we concur with the Secretary's suggestion to the BCAO to review the administration of the Adams family's SNAP benefits.
As suggested above, Adams' challenges to the merits of the CALJ's and ALJ's decisions suggest that she may have been seeking to appeal those decisions in an untimely manner. Adams, however, has not sought to appeal nunc pro tunc, and thus, we are not able to review the merits of those decisions.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Secretary did not abuse his discretion, and we must affirm his decision denying reconsideration.
DPW also filed a motion to strike all documents and facts not of record. Because DPW is correct in noting that the documents it identifies in its motion are not part of the record before the ALJ, we will grant DPW's motion to strike. The documents we hereby strike are the following Exhibits Adams included in the reproduced record: C, G, H, K, O, Q, R, and S. With regard to DPW's motion to strike any non-record facts Adams asserts in the text of her brief, this Court has been able to recognize and disregard any such extra-record facts. Accordingly, our order will formally strike only the above-noted exhibits. --------
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2013, the order of the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), denying Petitioner's request for reconsideration, is AFFIRMED. DPW's motion to strike is GRANTED with regard to Petitioner's exhibits C, G, H, K, O, Q, R, and S, but is DENIED as unnecessary with regard to any extra-record facts Petitioner relies upon in her brief.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge