Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

The Commonwealth appealed a superior court order that reversed an order denying appellee's petition for post conviction relief and for remanding for an evidentiary hearing. Appellee Joseph Abraham was accused of soliciting a former student for sex, and for allegedly sexually assaulting her. When the allegations surfaced, the then 67-year-old Appellee retired from teaching and began receiving pension payments. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, appellee pled guilty to corruption of a minor and indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age. He was sentenced to probation; no direct appeal was filed. Because the crime of indecent assault of a person less than 16 years of age is one of the enumerated offenses in the Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act (PEPFA), appellee forfeited his pension when he pled guilty to this charge. He filed a motion to withdraw his plea nunc pro tunc, alleging he was not informed of his right to seek withdrawal of his plea or of the possible sentences he faced. The trial court denied the motion. Appellee filed a timely PCRA petition alleging plea counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him he would forfeit his pension upon pleading guilty. The PCRA court dismissed the petition without a hearing. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed. "Because counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to advise a defendant regarding the collateral consequences of a plea, appellee's ineffectiveness claim fails." Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Superior Court granting appellee a PCRA hearing on the issue of prejudice, and remanded the case to reinstate the PCRA court's order denying appellee relief. View "Pennsylvania v. Abraham" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Kenneth Bond and Deborah Thibault, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment to the defendants, the City of Manchester and Paul Martineau in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Manchester Welfare Department (collectively, the City). In January 2010, the plaintiffs applied for general assistance from the City pursuant to RSA chapter 165. See RSA 165:1, I (2002). On February 24, 2010, the City approved $140.00 per week in rental assistance. On March 18, 2010, the City suspended this assistance for seven days because of the plaintiffs' failure to provide certain documentation, including that which related to $30 the plaintiffs used to buy gas for a vehicle. The City lifted this suspension on March 25, 2010, noting that the plaintiffs were "unable to show compliance with the $30 purchase of vehicle gas that [they] stated [they] had previously purchased through an alternate financial resource." On April 9, 2010, the City revoked an April 8 voucher and denied the plaintiffs all assistance for six months because they had misrepresented information related to their vehicle. The plaintiffs petitioned the superior court to enjoin the City from suspending their assistance. Because the Supreme Court held that RSA 165:1-b and the Guidelines pertaining to rental assistance actually conflict, the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Bond v. Martineau" on Justia Law

Brian Ross had been absent from the State of Alaska since 1990, first as a student at the United States Naval Academy and later as a career Marine Corps officer. Despite his absence, Ross maintained Alaska residency and received a permanent fund dividend each year. In 1998 the Alaska Legislature amended the dividend qualifications to provide that anyone who was allowably absent for ten consecutive years would no longer be eligible for dividends. This ten-year rule, however, does not apply to members of the United States Congress, their staffs, or the families of either. In 2009 Ross and his children applied for dividends but were denied because Ross had then been absent for ten consecutive years from the enactment of the ten-year rule. They appealed the denial, but the denial was upheld at an informal agency appeal, a formal agency appeal, and by the superior court. Ross appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ten-year rule violates his equal protection and substantive due process rights. Because the ten-year rule and congressional exception are fairly and substantially related to the legitimate state interests of limiting dividends to permanent Alaska residents and preventing fraud, and because the ten-year rule is rationally related to the legitimate state purpose of reducing administrative burdens, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court as to these claims. View "Ross v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

A man filed an application for both occupational and nonoccupational disability benefits from the Public Employees Retirement System, claiming disability from both physical and mental conditions. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim, finding that he failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a physical or mental disability that presumably permanently prevented him from satisfactorily performing his job. The man appealed and the superior court affirmed the ALJ's determination. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the man challenged the ALJ's determination regarding his mental condition. Because the ALJ's written findings were sufficiently detailed to support the ALJ's conclusions, and because substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the man’s mental condition did not amount to an occupational or nonoccupational disability, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to uphold the ALJ's order.View "McKitrick v. Alaska Pub. Employees Retirement Sys." on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Human Services ("the Department") appealed a district court judgment reversing the Department's order determining Edward Ennis was ineligible for continued Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits. Ennis cross-appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his motion for costs. Ennis, self-employed, purchased a truck for $5,238 for use in his business. He paid for the truck in full and thus did not make ongoing payments. In March 2011, the County conducted a periodic recertification review to determine Ennis's continued eligibility for SNAP benefits. The County calculated his anticipated 2011 self-employment income based upon his actual 2010 self-employment income, without deducting the $5,238 expense for the truck. Based on this calculation, the County determined Ennis's anticipated 2011 income exceeded the income limit for SNAP benefits and issued a denial of benefits. Ennis appealed to the Department and requested a hearing. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and order determining that the purchase price of the truck should have been deducted from Ennis's anticipated 2011 self-employment income and recommending that the County's denial of further benefits be reversed. The executive director of the Department disagreed with the ALJ's recommendation and issued amended findings, conclusions and final order affirming the County's determination that Ennis was not entitled to further SNAP benefits. Ennis appealed to the district court, which reversed the Department's final order and reinstated the recommended findings of the ALJ. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and reinstated the Department's final order denying further benefits. View "Ennis v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Appellant was a personal care attendant for a Medicaid beneficiary. Appellant was later charged with Medicaid fraud for submitting a false claim for his services. After a bench trial Appellant was convicted under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3846(a)(1) for defrauding the Medicaid program. The court of appeals reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the complaint charged that Appellant submitted statements for services he did not provide while the evidence at trial established that Appellant actually did provide the services for which he submitted statements. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for Medicaid fraud.View "State v. McWilliams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Dilley appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee City of Missoula. The district court concluded the City acted within its legal authority when it purchased the Missoula Civic Stadium with tax increment financing (TIF) funds designated for urban renewal. The stadium was originally planned and developed by Play Ball Missoula, Inc. (Play Ball), a volunteer, non-profit corporation organized for the purpose of bringing a minor league baseball team to Missoula. In 2000, Play Ball and the City entered a development agreement that permitted Play Ball to finance and construct a stadium on blighted City property and later convey the facility to the City. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed suit prior to the City's acquisition of the stadium, alleging the planned purchase using TIF funds was an "illegal payoff of private enterprise debt." On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the district court erroneously failed to specify which provision under Title 7, Chapter 15, Part 42 of the Montana Code that permitted the "payoff." He also argued that the City could not make such an expenditure of TIF funds simply because the practice was not prohibited by statute. Finding that the City's use of TIF money to acquire the stadium was a proper exercise of its urban renewal posers, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the City's favor. View "Dilley v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

The New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (NYC OTB) was a public benefit corporation charged with operating an off-track pari-mutuel betting system within the City. Later, NYC OTB filed for bankruptcy and shut down. The City's Corporation Counsel then announced that NYC OTB retirees would lose coverage under the City's health insurance and welfare benefit plans because the Corporation was no longer able to reimburse the City. A union representing NYC OTB employees and retirees and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought suit against the State and City, seeking a judgment declaring that the failure of the State and City to fund, and the termination of retiree health insurance and supplemental benefits, violated the City Administrative Code and other express and implied obligations. Supreme Court rejected the four theories advanced by Plaintiffs to support State or City liability for NYC OTB retiree health benefits. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim against the City; and (2) because NYC OTB had a legal identity separate from the State, Plaintiffs stated no viable theory under which the State could be held liable in this case.View "Roberts v. Paterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's son, Hayden, was involved in a near-drowning accident in which he suffered severe permanent injuries. Plaintiff subsequently sought coverage for the cost of his treatment from Wasatch Crest Mutual Insurance, under which Hayden was insured. Wasatch Crest was later declared insolvent, and Plaintiff filed a claim against the Wasatch Crest estate. The liquidator of the estate denied Plaintiff's claim, concluding that Wasatch Crest had properly terminated coverage under the language of the plan. The Supreme Court reversed, interpreting the plan in favor of coverage. Plaintiff resubmitted her claim for medical expenses to the liquidator for payment under the Utah Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act. One year later, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment with the district court. The liquidator subsequently issued a second amended notice of determination denying Plaintiff's claim on the merits. The district court then denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as Plaintiff had not yet challenged the second amended notice of determination and could do so under the Liquidation Act. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because Plaintiff did not appeal from a final judgment and had not satisfied any of the exceptions to the final judgment rule.View "Mellor v. Wasatch Crest Mut. Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three plaintiff-classes and Sheila Perdue individually, brought a class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunction relief alleging violations of their federal statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs challenged the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's (FSSA) automated system of processing claims for Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families benefits. The trial court held (1) the FSSA's denial notices satisfied due process; (2) the FSSA could not deny an application for Food Stamp benefits when the applicant failed to cooperate in the eligibility determination process; and (3) determined that the FSSA had failed to accommodate Perdue's disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the FSSA's denial notices were insufficiently explanatory in violation of due process; (2) the FSSA may deny an application for Food Stamp benefit when the applicant fails to cooperate in the eligibility determination process; and (3) Perdue was entitled to reasonable accommodations in applying for benefits, but that did not necessarily require providing a caseworker or case management services.View "Perdue v. Gargano" on Justia Law