The issue involved in this appeal is quite clear. May DPW bring an action to enforce repayment of public assistance from workmen's compensation benefits? The issue is one which this Court noted, but did not answer, in our recent decision of Congleton v. Department of Welfare, 48 Pa. Commw. 615, 409 A.2d 1382 (1980). Our holding in Congleton was that the conditioning of eligibility for public assistance upon the signing of a form Pa. 176-K was valid under the standard enunciated in Good v. Wohlgemuth, 15 Pa. Commw. 524, 327 A.2d 397 (1974).
Tunnicliff v. Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare, 483 Pa. 275, 281-82, 396 A.2d 1168, 1171 (1978). Congleton v. Department of Public Welfare, 48 Pa.Commw.Ct. 615, 619, 409 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1980), and Blake, 439 A.2d at 1264, analogized workmen's compensation benefits under Pennsylvania law to supplemental social security income under the Social Security Act. We do not think that this analogy should be extended to wages, which are not "protected funds," particularly when the limitations of 15 U.S.C. § 1673 apply to prevent the garnishment from becoming unduly oppressive.
Department of Public Welfare reimbursement authorizations have been specifically determined not to be assignments. Tunnicliff v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 483 Pa. 275, 396 A.2d 1168 (1978) (PA 176-K reimbursement authorization form); Congleton v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 48 Pa. Commw. 615, 409 A.2d 1382 (1982) (PA 176-K reimbursement authorization form); Vazquez v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 42 B.R. 609 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1984) (PA 176-S reimbursement authorization form). The PA 176-K authorization form provides in pertinent part:
The Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that the Pa-176K medical assistance reimbursement form (similar to a Pa-9 Form) is merely an affirmation of the statutory liability established by 62 P.S. § 1974. Congleton v. Pa. D. P. W., 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 615, 409 A.2d 1382 (1980). The court cited Congleton and stated that the form "does not give the Commonwealth any position other than its rightful one as a common creditor and is not tantamount to legal process."
This form is merely an affirmation of the statutory liability, established by 62 P. S. § 1974, to make reimbursement; it does not give the Commonwealth any position other than its rightful one of common creditor and is not "tantamount to legal process." Congleton v.Pa. Dept. of Public Welfare, 48 Pa. Commw. 615, 409 A.2d 1382 (1980). Mrs. Shearer executed such an agreement (PA-176K) as a condition for receiving A.D.C. benefits.
Of course, the mere fact that DPW has exempted property from consideration as a resource does not necessarily mean that DPW may not still require Mrs. Farrell to acknowledge liability for the assistance received. This Court has previously held, in Congleton v. Department of Public Welfare, 48 Pa. Commw. 615, 409 A.2d 1382 (1980), that DPW may condition eligibility upon the signing of an acknowledgement of liability for reimbursement even if the named property is not liable for reimbursement. See Blake v. Department of Public Welfare, 63 Pa. Commw. 491, 439 A.2d 1262 (1981).