Opinion
C.A. No. K10A-10-002 WLW.
April 21, 2011.
Ms. Ruth V. Kraybill, Felton, Delaware.
Peter S. Feliceangeli, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dear Ms. Kraybill Mr. Feliceangeli:
The Court has before it an appeal of a decision of the hearing officer concerning the reduction of Ms. Ruth Kraybill's (Appellant) medical assistance benefits by the Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance (DMMA or Appellee) of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). Her medical assistance benefits come from the Disabled Adult Children's Medicaid program.
Appellant received a check form the Social Security Administration for $21,913.00, representing retroactive Social Security benefits from roughly 1987 to 1991, and submitted the award letter to DMMA. Thereafter, on June 2, 2010, DMMA redetermined her elegiblity as to her medical assistance benefits. DMMA determined that based on the Appellant's resources, given this additional award, she was determined to be over the $2,000 resource limit and her assistance would be reduced. Appellant requested a fair hearing before a DHSS Hearing Officer. After hearing from the parties, the Hearing Officer ruled for Appellant, holding that DMMA's decision is reversed and her medical assistance benefits from the Disabled Adult Children's Medicaid program are restored.
See transcript at pages 6-8 and Decision of Hearing Officer dated 9/3/10.
Appellant filed her appeal on October 5, 2011 in this Court from the Administrative Agency Hearing Officer Decision dated and posted on September 3, 2010. Each party has filed their respective briefs and this matter is ready for decision.
Standard of Review
Superior Court exercises limited appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction exists only if it has been specifically granted by law. The Court has appellate jurisdiction over final agency decisions pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10142. In the absence of actual fraud, agency decisions will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence on the record. The Court defers to an administrative agency's findings of fact and its interpretation of its own regulations. Questions of law are reviewed de novo.
Rodriquez v. Palmer, 2001 WL 1628317 at *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 26, 2001).
Id.
29 Del. C. 1042(d).
Munir v. Del. Examining Board of Physical Therapy, 1999 WL 517412 at *3 (Del. Super 1999).
State v. Worsham, 638 A.2d 1104, 1106 (Del. 1994).
Appellant has a right of appeal of a denial or restriction of public assistance benefits under Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 of Title 31 of the Delaware Code if the decision below would result in financial harm to the appellant. Unfortunately, the appeal is late by two days, as acknowledged by the Appellant. Statutory appeals to the Superior Court are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. The record reflects that Appellant's appeal is untimely. When a party fails to perfect an appeal within the period mandated by stature, a jurisdictional defect is created that may not be excused in the absence of unusual circumstances attributable to court personnel and not attributable to the appellant or the attorney. I do not find that special circumstances exist in this case when the Appellant acknowledges the error and does not attribute it to court personnel. However, even if the appeal is perfected and properly filed in sufficient time, the grounds for this appeal must be questioned.
29 Del. C. Sec. 10161 and by 31 Del. C. 520.
Draper King Cole v Malave, 743 A. 2nd 672.
Given the fact that Appellant won her case at the Administrative Hearing level, there is no case or controversy before this Court. Indeed, the Hearing Officer ruled conclusively in Appellant's favor that the DMMA could not terminate her medicaid benefits after she received the $ 21,913.00 check for retroactive social security benefits. While Appellant may still worry that the Social Security Administration may demand this money back, there is no active controversy before this Court to decide. A matter that might occur in the future is not sufficient to raise on an appeal. I agree with the Appellee that a recipient of public assistance benefits is not permitted to appeal a decision of a DHSS Fair Hearing Officer who has ruled in the recipient's favor.
Coleman v Division of Economic Services, 1986 WL 4273 (Del. Super., Apr. 3, 1986.)
Therefore, the Decision of the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.