v. WV DHHR ACTION NOs.: 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Enclosed is a copy of the decision resulting from the hearing held in the above-referenced matter.

Transcription

1 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Earl Ray Tomblin BOARD OF REVIEW Karen L. Bowling Governor 203 East Third Avenue Cabinet Secretary Williamson, WV June 15, 2016 RE: v. WV DHHR ACTION NOs.: 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Dear Mr. and Ms. Enclosed is a copy of the decision resulting from the hearing held in the above-referenced matter. In arriving at a decision, the State Hearing Officer is governed by the Public Welfare Laws of West Virginia and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Health and Human Resources. These same laws and regulations are used in all cases to assure that all persons are treated alike. You will find attached an explanation of possible actions you may take if you disagree with the decision reached in this matter. Sincerely, Stephen M. Baisden State Hearing Officer Member, State Board of Review Encl: Appellant s Recourse to Hearing Decision Form IG-BR-29 cc: Brian Shreve, Repayment Investigator

2 WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES BOARD OF REVIEW Appellants,, v. Action Numbers: 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent. DECISION OF STATE HEARING OFFICER INTRODUCTION This is the decision of the State Hearing Officer resulting from a fair hearing for. This hearing was held in accordance with the provisions found in Chapter 700 of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) Common Chapters Manual. This fair hearing was convened on June 8, 2016, on an appeal filed April 26, The matter before the Hearing Officer arises from the April 14, 2016 decision by the Respondent to establish a repayment claim against the Appellants receipt of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. At the hearing, the Respondent appeared by the Department s Representative, Repayment Investigator Brian Shreve. The Appellants appeared pro se. Appearing as a witness for the Appellants was, Ms. mother. All participants were sworn and the following documents were admitted into evidence. Department s Exhibits: D-1 Form ES-FS-5, Food Stamp (now SNAP) Claim Determination D-2 SNAP Case Recordings, dated February 20 to November 2, 2015 D-3 Print-out from WV Department of Motor Vehicles (WV DMV) indicating Driver s License demographic information from Ms. and driver s licenses D-4 Print-out from WV DMV indicating vehicle registration information for a vehicle registered to Appellant Mr. D-5 Series of screen prints from Facebook account of Appellant Mr. D-6 Print-out from ipact, on-line service of the WV Department of Vital Statistics, indicating marriage information for Appellants 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Page 1

3 D-7 WV Income Maintenance Manual (WV IMM), Chapter 9, 9.1.A.1(2) D-8 WV IMM, Chapter 20, 20.2 D-9 Letter from Department to Appellant Ms. dated April 14, 2016 D-10 Record check from the Circuit Court of County, dated May 5, 2016 Appellant s Exhibits None After a review of the record, including testimony, exhibits, and stipulations admitted into evidence at the hearing, and after assessing the credibility of all witnesses and weighing the evidence in consideration of the same, the Hearing Officer sets forth the following Findings of Fact. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Appellant Ms. received SNAP benefits for herself and four children. The Department s representative argued that for January, February and March 2016, Ms. and her children lived with her husband and his two children, making a household of eight individuals (Exhibit D-1). 2) On November 2, 2015, the Appellant reported to the WV DHHR, County Office, that she and her four children separated from her husband and his two children (Exhibit D- 2). At that time, she applied for SNAP for herself and her children. 3) In February 2016, the Department s representative received a tip indicating that Mr. and Ms. were not separated. He investigated this allegation. 4) On April 13, 2016, the Department s representative completed a Food Stamp (now SNAP) Claim Determination (Exhibit D-1). He concluded that because Ms. did not report she and her husband lived together, his earned income was not counted toward the eligibility of her SNAP assistance group (AG), thus she received $1536 in SNAP benefits to which she was not entitled. 5) The Department sent the Appellants letters (Exhibit D-9) informing them of the repayment obligation and amount. 6) The Appellants requested a fair hearing to protest the Department s establishment of this repayment obligation. APPLICABLE POLICY The WV Income Maintenance Manual (WV IMM), Chapter 9, 9.1.A.1(2) states that spouses who live together must be in the same assistance group, even if they do not purchase and prepare meals together. 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Page 2

4 The WVWV IMM, Chapter 20, 20.2 reads, When an [assistance group] has been issued more SNAP benefits than it was entitled to receive, corrective action is taken by establishing either an Unintentional Program Violation (UPV) or Intentional Program Violation (IPV) claim. WV IMM, Chapter 20, 20.2.C.1 reads, A UPV claim is established when... an error by the Department resulted in the overissuance [or] an unintentional error made by the client resulted in the overissuance... DISCUSSION Ms. reported to the WV DHHR in November 2015 that she and her four children had separated from Mr. and his two children (Exhibit D-2). Mr. and Ms. have one child in common, who remained with his mother. The Department s representative established a repayment obligation against the Appellants based on evidence that Mr. and Ms. lived together and were not separated. The Department s representative presented evidence from the WV Department of Motor Vehicles (WV DMV) indicating Mr. listed Ms. mailing address when he had a vehicle titled to him in November 2015 (Exhibit D-4). He presented evidence from the WV DMV indicating that Mr. son, who Ms. reported as out of the home, listed her mailing address on a nonoperator s photo identification card issued in November 2015 (Exhibit D-3). Ms. testified that after Mr. moved out of her home, she allowed him and his son to get their mail at her mailbox until they could obtain their own address. She testified that his and her children get off the school bus at her home every day, and he comes to her home to pick them up when he arrives home from work. She stated he spent time with her children as well as his every day because he had been a part of their lives for many years. Mr. testified that he and his children moved into a mobile home less than a mile away from Ms. home. He testified that his home is on a lot leased from a coal company that has filed bankruptcy, so he may have to relocate it in the near future. He speculated that he may have to move his mobile home to Ms. home lot and live next to her if he cannot find another lot to buy, lease or rent. The case against Mr. and Ms. is circumstantial. The only substantial evidence to indicate they live together is print-outs from the WV DMV indicating Mr. listed Ms. mailing address as his on a vehicle title and his son s identification card. However, neither Mr. nor Ms. submitted evidence indicating they live apart. They did not submit rent receipts, utility bill receipts, or information related to Mr. purchase of his mobile home. Also, Mr. and Ms. testimony supported the Department s position that they lived together. Ms. testified that Mr. children came to her home after school daily. Mr. testified that he lived less than a mile away from Ms. and speculated that he may move his mobile home to the same lot as Ms. in the near future. 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Page 3

5 The preponderance of evidence indicates that Mr. and Ms. lived together from January to March The Department acted correctly to establish a repayment obligation against them. CONCLUSION OF LAW The WV Income Maintenance manual, in Chapter 20, 20.2, requires the establishment of SNAP repayment claims whenever there has been an excessive issuance of SNAP benefits. As such, the Department correctly established a SNAP repayment claim against the Appellants for $1536. DECISION It is the decision of the State Hearing Officer to UPHOLD the Department s decision to establish a SNAP repayment claim totaling $1536 against the Appellants. ENTERED this 15 th Day of June Stephen M. Baisden State Hearing Officer 16-BOR-1787 and 16-BOR-1788 Page 4