Opinion
23-ALJ-18-0270-AP
02-20-2024
Cynthia Grow, Petitioner, v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent.
ORDER
The Honorable Crystal M. Rookard, South Carolina Administrative Law Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court ("ALC" or "Court") pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed on July 3, 2023 by Cynthia Grow ("Appellant"). Appellant seeks review of a Final Administrative Order issued by the South Carolina Department of Social Services' ("Department") Fair Hearing Committee ("Committee") which concluded that after consideration of reported expenses, Appellant's household net income exceeds the net income limit for a one-person household as required to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to subsections 1-23-600(D) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023) and 43-5-150 of the South Carolina Code (2015). Upon a thorough review of the parties' briefs, the record on appeal and the law, the Committee's order is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On January 5,2023, Appellant submitted a renewal application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The application indicated that Appellant was sixty-years old, blind or disabled, and a one-person household with an income of $2,088.70 from Social Security benefits and earnings from her employment at Food Lion. As for Appellant's experts the application identified payments on a $16,000 car loan, $1,530 in rent, $130 in utilitie and $15 for rental insurance. The application further noted a projected future expense of $200 for car insurance and a $550 late fee for a cancelled car insurance policy.
The application stated that after Medicaid deductions Appellant received $1,921.00.
The submitted paystubs reflect earnings of $445.88, $239.50, $642.13, and $637.63 for the pay periods of October ¶ 30-November 12,2024, November 13-19, 2024, November 27- December 10, 2024, and December, 11 -24, 2024.
$30 of which was added for water expenses.
Following its review of Appellant's application, the Department sent Appellant notice that Appellant's SNAP benefits would be stopped effective January 2023 because her gross income exceeded the financial threshold required to obtain SNAP benefits. Upon the request of Appellant, a hearing was held before the Department's Fair Hearing Committee on May 1, 2023. On behalf of the Department, LaCourtney Moss, a SNAP specialist, and Ms. Thompson, a Department Supervisor, participated in the hearing as did Appellant who appeared pro se.
Ms. Moss indicated that the Department determined that Appellant received $2,088.70 through Social Security benefits and $1,382.14 in earnings from a part-time job, an amount which she stated exceeded the $1,473 gross monthly limit for a one-household. When asked how much had been budgeted for expenses, Ms. Moss and Ms. Thompson each acknowledged that aside from medical expenses the Department had not deducted expenses since Appellant failed to submit proof of the expenses which were reported on her application. Appellant refuted this point, indicating that a copy of her lease and three months of electric, cell, and renter's insurance bills were submitted to the Department. Nevertheless, Ms. Thompson stated that irrespective of her expenses, Appellant's income still exceeded the monthly income limit.
The Department calculated Appellant's gross earned income using her wages from December 14, 2022 ($642.13) and December 19,2022 ($637.68), multiplied by the bi-weekly conversion factor of 2.16.
Ms. Thompson informed that a $475.41 deduction was given for medical expenses.
In discussing her net income, Appellant indicated that after Medicaid deductions her Social Security benefits was $1,923. With respect to her part-job, Appellant informed that the paystubs submitted along with her application were not a fair representation of her earnings because it included earnings from additional hours which she worked during the holidays. She stated that normally she only works fifteen hours per week. She also identified expenses including a $1,530 rent payment, an electric bill, cell phone expense, and renter's policy. With respect to her car, she indicated that it had been repossessed but that she was anticipating future car expenses including loan payments, insurance and gas. Appellant offered an average utility expense of $94. Appellant also referenced medical expenses which averaged around $280. In light of the aforementioned, the Hearing Officer asked Ms. Thompson to recalculate Appellant's gross income. Based upon her calculations, Ms. Thompson indicated that Appellant's net income $2,366.41 after a $1,530 deduction for rent and $475.71 for medical expenses.
It should be noted that Appellant did not appeal the time period which the Department used to determine Appellant's household income nor whether the budgeted income was an accurate representation of her income.
During the hearing Ms. Grow referenced with prescription drug costs between $60 and $100 dollars, Medicare $167.70 Medicare premium and a $10 prescription plan through Humana.
On June 23,2023, the hearing officer issued a issued a detailed Final Administrative Order affirming the Department's closure of Appellant's SNAP benefits. The order outlined the manner in which the Department calculated Appellant's SNAP eligibility and set forth the applicable law regarding medical deductions. The hearing officer concluded that the Department erred in its budgeting of Appellant's income, noting that the Department unjustifiably reduced Appellant's medical expense deduction without there having been any changes to Appellant's expenses during the six-month recertification period and failed to budget and verify Appellant's rent when determining Appellant's eligibility. Nevertheless, the hearing officer concluded that Appellant's SNAP benefits were properly closed since with appropriate consideration of Appellant income and reported expenses, Appellant exceeded the limit of $1,133 for a one-person household.
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Whether the Department's closure of Appellant's SNAP case is supported by substantial evidence or affected by error of law?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Department is an agency under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). See Gibson v. Florence Country Club, 282 S.C. 384, 386, 318 S.E.2d 365, 367 (1984). Pursuant to subsection l-23-600(E) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023), when the ALC sits in its appellate capacity, the ALC's review "must be in the same manner as prescribed in section 1-23-380." Subsection 1-23-380(5) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2023) sets forth the standard used by appellate bodies when reviewing agency decisions under the APA, stating that:
The [C]ourt may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The [C]ourt may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The [C]ourt may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(c) made upon unlawful procedure;
(d) affected by other error of law;
(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
A decision is supported by "substantial evidence" when the record as a whole allows reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion as the agency. Friends of the Earth v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of S.C, 387 S.C. 360, 366, 692 S.E.2d 910, 913 (2010). "[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984). When applying the substantial evidence rule, the factual findings are presumed to be correct. Rodney v. Michelin Tire Co., 320 S.C. 515, 519, 466 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1996). "[A] reviewing court will not overturn a finding of fact by an administrative agency 'unless there is no reasonable probability that the facts could be as related by a witness upon whose testimony the finding was based."' Sea Pines Ass 'nfor Prot. of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res., 345 S.C. 594, 603-04, 550 S.E.2d 287, 292 (2001) (quoting Larkv. Bi-Lo., Inc., 276 S.C. 130,136,276 S.E.2d 304,307 (1981)). The reviewing court is also prohibited from substituting its judgement for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on question of fact. Grant v. S.C. Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 353, 461 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1995). Finally, the party challenging an agency action has the burden of proving convincingly that the agency's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence. Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Comm'n of S.C, 321 S.C. 219, 226,467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996).
DISCUSSION
SNAP is a federal program "designed to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and well being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households." 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(a) (Westlaw Edge through 89 FR 10004). In South Carolina, the Department is responsible for administering and determining eligibility for SNAP benefits. See 7 C.F.R. § 271.4; see also S.C. Code Ann. § 43-5-10. More specifically, the Department's county staff is responsible for determining a household's eligibility for SNAP. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-5-145. Eligibility for recertiilcation is determined based on circumstances anticipated for the certification period starting the month following the expiration of the current certification period. 7 C.F.R. § 273.10(2). A household may be ineligible for the month of application, but eligible in the subsequent month due to anticipated changes in circumstances. 7 C.F.R. §273.10(3).
The Department is required to apply the uniform national resource standards of eligibility to all applicant households. 7 C.F.R. § 273.8(a). In accordance with SNAP's purpose, households may only receive SNAP benefits if the household income is "determined to be a substantial limiting factor in permitting them to obtain a more nutritious diet." 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(a). For the period ranging from October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, the gross income limit for a household of one was $1,473 and $1,133 for the net income limit.
Income is calculated based upon both earned and unearned income. 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(b); South Carolina Department of Social Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Manual, § 11.2 (Vol. 55 Oct. 2022). Income that is earned on a biweekly basis is converted into a monthly amount by multiplying by a factor of 2.16. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Manual, § 13.4(2) (Vol. 55 Oct. 2022). Generally, income received during the past thirty days is used as an indicator of income. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Manual, § 11.2 (Vol. 55 Oct. 2022). However, if the household's income fluctuates seasonally, it may be appropriate to use the most recent season comparable to the certification period, rather than the last 30 days, as one indicator of anticipated income. Id.
When budgeting a household's net monthly income, the State agency shall:
(A) Add the gross monthly income earned by all household members and the total monthly unearned income of all household members, minus income exclusions, to determine the household's total gross income. Net losses from the self-employment income of a farmer shall be offset in accordance with § 273.1 l(a)(2)(iii).
(B) Multiply the total gross monthly earned income by 20 percent and subtract that amount from the total gross income; or multiply the total gross monthly earned income by 80 percent and add that to the total monthly unearned income, minus income exclusions. If the State agency has chosen to treat legally obligated child support payments as an income exclusion in accordance with § 273.9(c)(17), multiply the excluded earnings used to pay child support by 20 percent and subtract that amount from the total gross monthly income.
(C) Subtract the standard deduction.
(D) If the household is entitled to an excess medical deduction as provided in § 273.9(d)(3), determine if total medical expenses exceed $35. If so, subtract that portion which exceeds $35. ...7 C.F.R. § 273.10(e)(1)(i). For households with an elderly or disabled member the applicant must meet the net income eligibility standards.
For purpose of deductions, federal regulations limit them to expenses for "certain dependent care, shelter, medical and, at State agency option, child support costs as described in § 273.9." 7 C.F.R. 273.10(d). Amongst other things, prescription drugs and premiums for health insurance are recognized as an allowable medical expense. South Carolina Department of Social Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Manual, § 12.8(2) (Vol. 55 Oct. 2022). Households with a disabled SSI recipients such as the Appellant in this case are entitled to:
For purpose of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, disabled includes, amongst other things, individuals who are 60 years of age or older and those who receive supplement under titles I, II, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act.
excess medical deduction of § 273.9(d)(3) and the uncapped excess shelter expense deduction of § 273.9(d)(5) for the period for which the SSI recipient is authorized to receive SSI benefits or the date of the SNAP application, whichever is later, if the household incurs such expenses.7 C.F.R. § 273.10(d)(ii)(7). For puipose of medical deductions, households reporting medical expenses in excess of the standard deduction of $210.00 per month may provide documentation of their actual monthly medical expenses in order to receive the Excess Medical (EM) deduction. Section 12.8 of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Manual, Vol. 55 (Oct. 2022).
As an initial matter, the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Court provide that a brief shall contain a "statement of each of the issues presented for review." SCALC Rule 37(B)(1). Additionally, the brief "shall be divided into as many parts as there are issues to be argued, and each such part shall bear an appropriate caption, followed by a discussion and citation of authority." In this matter, the only document which Appellant has filed that could possibly be construed as a brief is a letter to the Court, filed on October 20, 2023. The letter does not, however, challenge any particular deduction taken by the Department nor its method of budgeting Appellant's income. Rather, the letter provides a rendition of Appellant's financial situation since February 13, 2022, with bills and paystubs from the last three months attached and, a general statement that "I do not understand how I could make too much money when my rent is almost $200 more than the max income for one person." Were the Court to construe Appellant's letter as a brief, it is undeniably deficient and non-compliant with this Court's rules. Moreover, Appellant's letter lacks any arguments or citations to authority for why the Departments closure of Appellant's SNAP case was in error, thus making it particularly challenging for the Court to properly address the merits of the case. See SCALC Rule 37; see also Potter v. Spartanburg School Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 24,716 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only conclusory."). To the regard that Appellant may believe her past three months bills and paystubs justify her eligibility for SNAP benefits, this Court's review is regrettably limited to facts set forth in the Record on Appeal. See SCALC Rule 36(G) ("The Administrative Law Judge will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record."). As such, the Court is unable to consider the additional bills and paystubs.
The Court encourages Appellant to reapply for SNAP benefits should her financial resources since changed.
Finally, even were the Court to set aside these fallacies, substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's determination. During the hearing, Appellant confirmed her receipt of income that was used in the hearing officer's budgeting of Appellant's income. In fact, in Appellant's letter to the Court she acknowledged that her earnings were greater than the financial limit for SNAP benefits. Moreover, the record reflects that Appellant was given the standard deduction and an excess medical deduction of $475.71, an amount which is in excess of medical expenses reported during the hearing. While the Court sympathizes with the Appellant, the additional expenses referenced during the hearing are unfortunately not recognized under federal law as allowable expenses. See 7 C.F.R. 273.10(d). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Appellant's income was properly budgeted and that it is an amount which is in excess of the federal limit for a one-person household.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Fair Hearing Committee of the South Carolina Department of Social Services is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.