DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 1236 C.D. 1974
Citation Numbers: 19 Pa. Commw. 124
Judges: Crumlish, Kramer, Rogers
Filed Date: 5/6/1975
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
Opinion by
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a special allowance of the “actual minimum cost of transportation” to a welfare recipient attending a vocational training pro
The parties have stipulated to the following facts which frame the legal issue presented:
Appellant, Marlene Tillman, is on public assistance and lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From September 1973 to May 1974, Appellant was enrolled in a vocational training program at Allegheny Community College which made her eligible for a special transportation allowance under §3212.12 of the Public Assistance Manual of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). This regulation provides an eligible recipient with the “ [a] dual minimum cost of transportation and necessary related expenses which cannot be met from other resources ... (e) ... a recipient must pay for transportation to attend vocational training. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) During the period in question, Appellant received as part of her general assistance grant a $10.30 monthly transportation allowance, for a total of $92.70. Having used her private automobile to travel to and from the vocational program, Appellant’s actual transportation costs totalled $416.31, which, after deducting applicable income from “other resources,” exceeded her transportation allowance by $151.09. Upon being notified that the County Assistance office intended to terminate her monthly transportation allowance at the end of the academic term, Appellant requested a hearing to determine whether the allowance theretofore provided was sufficient to meet her “actual minimum cost of transportation” under §3212.12. At this hearing, as here, Appellant argued that §3212.12 requires a reimbursement of the minimum cost of the particular mode of transportation actually used by Appellant, i.e., her car. On August 9, 1974, the DPW hearing officer dismissed Appellant’s appeal, interpreting the regulation to mean the minimum cost of transportation available, which in Ap
The facts having been agreed upon, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the adjudication and order are in accordance with law. Caddy v. Department of Public Welfare, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 317, 322 A. 2d 140 (1974). We hold that the only interpretation of §3212.12 consonant with common sense and the purpose of public assistance as expressed by section 401 of the Public Welfare Code
Appellant finds support for her interpretation in the specific limitation of the mode of permitted transportation in other sections of the DPW regulations dealing with special transportation allowances, and thus inferentially the intended absence of such a limitation on
Although it is apparent from the hearing examiner’s adjudication that he believed public transportation was readily available to Appellant, no finding was made in this respect and the stipulations entered to do not resolve the question.
Order
And Now, May 6, 1975, the order of the hearing examiner is affirmed, and the record is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. 31, as amended, 62 P.S. §401, provided in part that “assistance shall be administered in such a way and manner as to encourage self-respect, self-dependency and the desire to be a good citizen and useful to society.”
. Interestingly, although the hearing examiner determined Appellant’s “actual minimum cost of transportation” to be the