Opinion
No. 2045 C.D. 2013
09-25-2014
Jeanna Lyons, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
Jeanna Lyons (Petitioner) petitions for review of an order of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW), which affirmed a decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), determining that Petitioner is liable for the repayment of excess benefits issued to her. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Petitioner applied for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on November 7, 2012, after being laid-off from her job. (Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 4.) At the time of her application, Petitioner supplied all requested verification documents to DPW, and DPW determined she was eligible to receive SNAP benefits. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioner began to receive Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits, which are considered "countable income" in a household's SNAP computation. (Id.) Due to agency error, however, Petitioner's SNAP benefits were not adjusted based upon Petitioner's receipt of UC benefits. (Id.) As a result, Petitioner received more SNAP benefits than those to which she was entitled. (Id.) DPW then issued a notice to Petitioner, establishing an over-issuance claim against her for SNAP benefits over-issued in the months of January and February 2013 in the amount of $456 and proposing recoupment of the over-issued benefits. (Id.)
7 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2036. The food stamp program, established by the Food Stamp Act of 1977, P.L. 95-113, was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246, Sec. 4001.
Petitioner appealed the notice, and an ALJ conducted a hearing. At the hearing, both Petitioner and DPW stipulated that Petitioner received unearned income from UC benefits during the period of over-issuance, and that the over-issuance was caused by agency error. (Id.) Following the hearing, the ALJ issued an order and opinion determining that Petitioner was liable for repayment of the over-issued benefits. The ALJ explained that:
Agency error caused [Petitioner's] household to receive excess SNAP benefits in January and February 2013.
. . .
[Petitioner] did not dispute she received unearned income from UC during the period of SNAP [over-issuance]. [Petitioner's] argument that an [over-issuance] claim should not be pursued because any [such] claim was caused by agency error is not supported by the regulations. [Petitioner's] household received $456 in excess SNAP benefits during the months of
January and February 2013. [Petitioner] is liable for repayment of the excess benefits issued to her household.(Id.) Petitioner appealed to DPW's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Petitioner then petitioned this Court for review. On appeal, Petitioner argues that she should not have to repay DPW for the SNAP benefits that were over-issued to her because the over-issuance was a result of agency error, as admitted at the hearing, rather than any fault on her part.
In reviewing orders of DPW, we are limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, or constitutional rights were violated. Ishler v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 518 A.2d 596, 597 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Petitioner does not challenge any of the ALJ's findings of fact on appeal, including the determination that the SNAP benefits she received were, in fact, in excess of what she was eligible to receive. --------
SNAP is a "joint undertaking of the federal and state governments under which the participating states agree to administer the program in conformity with the provisions of the [program]" and any regulations issued pursuant to the program. Ishler, 518 A.2d at 597; see SNAP, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2036; 7 C.F.R. § 272.2. Pennsylvania regulations thus mandate that "[c]ollection action shall be taken against a household for . . . administrative error claims . . . ." 55 Pa. Code § 501.12 (emphasis added) (citing 7 C.F.R. § 273.18 (specifying that an "agency error" claim is "any claim for an overpayment caused by an action or failure to take action by the State agency," and that the state agency "must establish and collect any claim by following these regulations")). This Court has held "that where a participant in [SNAP] has received an overissuance of food stamps under applicable federal regulations due to [DPW's] administrative error, [DPW] is entitled to recoupment in view of the mandatory nature of the federal regulations." Ishler, 518 A.2d at 598.
Petitioner's sole contention on appeal is that she should not be held financially liable when DPW has admitted that the overpayment resulted from a departmental error. This, however, clearly contradicts the established precedent of this Court and the state and federal regulations it interprets. While we acknowledge that allowing DPW to recoup overpayments issued because of its own admitted error may seem harsh to some, DPW is nonetheless authorized and, in fact, required to do so. See id. As such, the undisputed facts in this case establish that Petitioner is liable for repayment of the over-issued benefits.
For the forgoing reasons, the order of DPW is affirmed.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2014, the order of the Department of Public Welfare is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge