Opinion
No. 328-80
Opinion Filed September 1, 1981
1. Public Health and Welfare — Human Services Board — Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Human Services Board is limited to what is conferred by statute.
2. Public Health and Welfare — Human Services Board — Jurisdiction
Under statute providing for payment of burial expenses for persons receiving certain forms of public assistance or lacking sufficient funds to pay for their own funerals, the only parties eligible to receive payments from the Department of Social Welfare were funeral directors and towns required to arrange for burials for persons without assets; daughter of person eligible for payment of funeral expenses by department could not receive payments under statute and therefore was not an "applicant" entitled to a hearing on claim for funeral expenses by Human Services Board under statute providing for hearings by board. 3 V.S.A. § 3091; 33 V.S.A. § 3101.
3. Public Health and Welfare — Human Services Board — Jurisdiction
The terms "assistance" and "benefits" as used in statute providing for right of hearing before Human Services Board are terms of art referring to welfare benefits which are to be personally enjoyed by the recipient. 3 V.S.A. § 3091.
4. Public Health and Welfare — Supplemental Security Income for Aged, Blind and Disabled — Burial Expenses
The purpose of the statute providing for payment of burial expenses by Department of Social Welfare is to assign the responsibility for the burial of certain persons, including recipients of certain kinds of assistance, residents of state institutions, and those without sufficient assets to pay for their own funerals. 33 V.S.A. § 3101.
5. Public Health and Welfare — Supplemental Security Income for Aged, Blind and Disabled — Burial Expenses
In some cases, payments by the Department of Social Welfare under statute requiring payment of burial expenses may help to defray the funeral expenses paid by the relatives of a deceased person when they arrange for burial, but this does not make relatives recipients of assistance or benefits under statute providing giving applicants or recipients of assistance or benefits right to hearing before Human Services Board, since any financial benefit to relatives of deceased is only incidental for purpose of statute providing for payment of burial expenses. 3 V.S.A. § 3091; 33 V.S.A. § 3101.
6. Public Health and Welfare — Human Services Board — Jurisdiction
Payments under statute providing for payment of burial expenses by Department of Social Welfare are not welfare type benefits for a person such as a relative of a deceased person who arranges for and makes payments for the burial, as evidenced by the fact that only the status of the decedent, and not the status of the person arranging the burial, is considered in determining whether or not payments shall be made; therefore, the payments do not constitute "assistance" or "benefits" for purposes of statute providing applicant or recipient for "assistance" or "benefits" with right to hearing before Human Services Board. 3 V.S.A. § 3091; 33 V.S.A. § 3101.
7. Public Health and Welfare — Human Services Board — Jurisdiction
Where relative of decedent who was entitled to benefits under statute providing for payment of burial expenses by Department of Social Welfare instituted claim for reimbursement of expenses which she had incurred in connection with burial of decendent, since she was not entitled to payment under the statute, she was not an applicant for assistance or benefits within the meaning of the statute conferring the right to a hearing before the Human Services Board, and the board therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear her claim. 3 V.S.A. § 3091; 33 V.S.A. § 3101.
Appeal from decision of Human Services Board that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claim for certain funeral expenses. Human Services Board, Board, Chairman, presiding. Affirmed.
Wendy Morgan, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiff.
John J. Easton, Jr., Attorney General, Montpelier, and Michael O. McShane and Steven B. McLeod, Assistant Attorneys General, Waterbury, for Defendant.
Present: Barney, C.J., Larrow, Billings and Underwood, JJ., and Daley, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
This is an appeal from a decision of the Human Services Board that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appellant Vigario's claim.
The appellant seeks to recover from the Department of Social Welfare (Department) certain expenses she incurred in arranging for her mother's funeral. The appellant's mother was a recipient of benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, and was a person without sufficient assets to cover the cost of her own funeral. Under 33 V.S.A. § 3101, the Department was therefore responsible for arranging and paying for her funeral. The appellant, however, chose to make the funeral arrangements herself as her mother wanted to be buried out of state with her husband. Both before and after her mother's death the appellant spoke with the funeral director to determine what burial expenses might be paid by the Department. The funeral director spoke to an employee of the Department. That employee apparently misinformed the funeral director on a number of the requirements.
The funeral director then told the appellant that the Department would not pay any funeral expenses for the decedent. Although the Department did eventually pay some of the funeral expenses, the appellant claims that because of the misinformation, she incurred expenses she would not have otherwise incurred. The appellant requested that the Department reimburse her for these expenses. The Department refused, and the appellant sought a fair hearing before the Human Services Board (Board). After hearing, the Board dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.
The only issue before this Court is whether or not the Board was correct in dismissing the appellant's claim. The jurisdiction of the Board is limited to what is conferred by statute. Gloss v. Delaware Hudson Railroad, 135 Vt. 419, 378 A.2d 507 (1977). In this case the Board's jurisdiction is governed by 3 V.S.A. § 3091(a). This section provides in part:
An applicant for or a recipient of assistance, benefits or social services . . . from the department of social welfare . . . may file a request for a fair hearing with the human services board.
In the situation presented here, the Board would have jurisdiction only if the appellant is an "applicant" for "assistance" or "benefits."
33 V.S.A. § 3101 provides that the Department will arrange and pay for the burial of persons who receive certain forms of public assistance or who lack sufficient assets to pay for their own funerals. The appellant's mother was such a person. Under this section, the only parties who are eligible to receive payments from the Department are funeral directors, § 3101(a)(2), and towns that are required to arrange for burials for persons without assets, § 3101(c). These are the only entities who may apply for or receive payments under this section. The appellant could not receive payments under this section, and could not be considered an applicant for the purpose of 3 V.S.A. § 3091.
Even if the appellant could be considered an applicant, the Board would still lack jurisdiction to hear this matter, because the payments sought by the appellant are not "assistance" or "benefits" as those terms are used in 3 V.S.A. § 3091. In its order below the Board noted that the terms "assistance" and "benefits" in that section are "terms of art referring to welfare-type benefits which are to be personally enjoyed by the recipient . . . ." Payments made under 33 V.S.A. § 3101 are not such "welfare-type benefits." The purpose of this section is to assign the responsibility for the burial of certain persons, including recipients of certain kinds of assistance, residents of state institutions, and those without sufficient assets to pay for their own funerals. This section requires the Department, or in some cases state institutions or towns, to arrange and pay for the burials of these persons, and establishes certain procedures relating to payments for these funerals. As noted above, the section provides for payments by the Department only to funeral directors and towns. It is true that in some cases payments by the Department may help to defray the funeral expenses paid by the relatives of a deceased person when they arrange for burial, but this does not make these relatives recipients of assistance or benefits. Payments in these cases must still be made to a funeral director. 33 V.S.A. § 3101(a)(2). Any financial benefit to the relatives of the deceased is only incidental to the purpose of § 3101.
That these payments are not "welfare-type benefits" for a person such as the appellant is illustrated by the fact that only the status of the decedent is considered in determining whether or not payments shall be made. The status of a person such as the appellant who arranges for the burial of a person without assets is not considered. Assistance programs are characteristically based on the need of the recipient, see, e.g., 33 V.S.A. §§ 2651, 2703, 3004; Dupler v. City of Portland, 421 F. Supp. 1314 (1976); Newbury v. State Department of Public Assistance, 80 Wn.2d 13, 491 P.2d 235 (1971), and the needs of a person such as the appellant are irrelevant under 33 V.S.A. § 3101. Payments under § 3101 are not "assistance" or "benefits" for the purposes of 3 V.S.A. § 3091. As the appellant is not an applicant for assistance or benefits, she is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.
Whether or not the Department may be liable to the appellant for the misinformation supplied by its employee is not before us. We only need decide whether or not the Board is the proper forum for the claim as presented. We hold that it is not. The Board was correct in dismissing the appellant's claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Affirmed.