S. Burda v. Department of Human Services

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Steven Burda, :
Petitioner :
: No. 401 C.D. 2023
v. : No. 552 C.D. 2023
: SUBMITTED: September 9, 2024
Department of Human Services, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: November 5, 2024
Petitioner, Steven Burda, pro se, petitions for review from the
Department of Human Services’ denial of Petitioner’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits appeal,1 requiring him to repay the benefit
overissuance (i.e., overpayment) for the period he received benefits during the
pendency of a previous appeal to this Court which he lost. We affirm all relevant
orders.2
1
Docket Nos. 401 C.D. 2023 and 552 C.D. 2023 are essentially the same case. Although not
entirely clear, the petition for review docketed at No. 552, filed on March 27, 2023, appears to
appeal the final administrative action order issued by the Department’s Chief ALJ on March 8,
2023, affirming the ALJ’s decision. The petition for review docketed at No. 401, filed on April
20, 2023, appears to appeal the Department’s Acting Secretary’s order denying reconsideration,
filed on April 6, 2023. At all events, the matters have been consolidated and are considered
together.
2
See supra note 1.
The litigation underlying this case stretches back almost a decade to
2015, when the Department, through the Montgomery County Assistance Office,
determined that Petitioner’s family was no longer entitled to SNAP benefits because
its household income exceeded eligibility limits. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Adjudication issued December 29, 2022, Appeal of Steven Burda, Case No.
460566050-030, Findings of Fact “F.F.” 1-42, Certified R. “C.R.” at 205-208; see
also Burda v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 162 C.D. 2018, filed
December 17, 2019) (Burda I), appeal denied, 243 A.3d 726 (Pa. 2020), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 355 (2021), and rehearing denied, 142 S. Ct. 852 (2022). The decision
of this Court in Burda I affirmed the Department’s determination [after an earlier
appeal to this Court and remand, see Order, Burda v. Department of Human Services
(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 917 C.D. 2016, filed May 11, 2017),3] that Petitioner’s December
2015 monthly household income exceeded the income eligibility limits for SNAP,
rendering his family ineligible for benefits. Burda I, slip op. at 19.
During much of the pendency of the appeals process, Petitioner’s
family continued to receive SNAP benefits in accordance with Department
regulation. 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(h)(4)(iii) (“[r]equests for reconsideration will stay
action proposed in the decision of the Director”). Additionally, pursuant to an
emergency application for supersedeas filed by Petitioner during his first appeal, this
Court entered a stay of the Department’s order pending disposition of that appeal.
Per Curiam Order, Burda v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 917 C.D. 2016,
filed Oct. 3, 2016); Ex. C-14, C.R. at 172. Petitioner’s SNAP benefits continued
after remand and only ceased on August 31, 2018, due to non-renewal. ALJ
Adjudication, F.F. 25, C.R. at 207.
3
In this earlier appeal at No. 917 C.D. 2016, the Court entered an order remanding the matter
for issuance of a new adjudication.
2
In August 2022, the Department, through the Office of State Inspector
General (OSIG), notified Petitioner of an overissuance of SNAP benefits for the
claim period December 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018, totaling $4,095 in
payments between those dates4 and informed him of his obligation to repay the
overpayment. The cause of overpayment was listed as “household error,” and the
“reason for overpayment” as follows:
This overpayment occurred because the person named
above appealed an adverse action. As a result of the
appeal, the county assistance office stopped the adverse
action pending the appeal and you continued to receive
SNAP benefits. You lost your appeal and therefore must
repay the SNAP benefits you received immediately
following the expiration of the advance notice period. (55
Pa. Code § 275.4(h)(3)(ii)).
SNAP Overpayment Claim Change, Ex. C-8, C.R. at 69. Section 275.4(h)(3)(ii),
referred to in the reason for overpayment, provides in relevant part as follows:
“[w]hen the hearing decision sustains a proposed adverse action of the County
Assistance Office and assistance has been continued pending the hearing,
overpayment will occur for assistance received immediately following the expiration
of the advance notice period. Referral will be made to the Bureau of Claim
Settlement.” 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(h)(3)(ii).
Petitioner appealed the notice seeking repayment and a telephonic
hearing was conducted by an ALJ of the Department’s Bureau of Hearings and
Appeals (BHA). At the hearing, the Department’s income maintenance caseworker
(caseworker) and income maintenance caseworker supervisor (supervisor) appeared
4
This SNAP overissuance period was established based on a prior SNAP overissuance period
that ended on November 30, 2017, during the pendency of Petitioner’s first appeal. Petitioner’s
SNAP benefits closed on August 31, 2018, due to non-renewal. (ALJ Adjudication, C.R. at 221.)
3
for the Department. The caseworker testified that Petitioner’s household continued
to receive SNAP benefits pending the outcome of the appeal, even though the family
was no longer eligible for benefits. Notes of Testimony “N.T.” at 17-18, C.R. at
259-60. The supervisor testified that the reason Petitioner’s household continued to
receive benefits was his appeals and, in response to the ALJ’s questioning about the
lack of evidence of income, that “when calculating this type of overpayment, income
is not a factor.” N.T. at 18, C.R. at 260. Upon request of the ALJ for the regulation
or policy underlying this, the supervisor referenced a “reason code 49.” N.T. at 21,
C.R. at 263. Reason code 49, “Appeal Lost” is found in a document called “ARRC
[(Automated Restitution Referral and Computation)] Manual Chapter 5, Reason
Code Guidelines” and is identical to the reason provided in OSIG’s notice to
Petitioner. Compare SNAP Overpayment Claim Change, Ex. C-8, C.R. at 69 and
“From ARRC Manual, Chapter 5, Reason Code Guidelines,” Ex. C-10, C.R. at 81;
see also 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(h)(3)(ii). Petitioner appeared on his own behalf and
testified through a translator that he was eligible for SNAP benefits during the
relevant time period because he was unemployed and asserted that “many
admissions, inaccuracies, and miscomputations were performed during that period.”
N.T. at 26-27, C.R. at 268-69.
The ALJ concluded that a SNAP benefit overissuance occurred during
the period in question, December 2017 through August 2018, and ordered that the
appeal of the overissuance notice be denied. ALJ Adjudication, C.R. at 222. The
ALJ concluded that the Department established that Petitioner’s income “was never
the issue of this appeal and testified [that] this appeal was due to the fact [that]
[Petitioner] filed a timely appeal, which kept his SNAP benefits open pending a
hearing decision.” Id. Petitioner filed a reconsideration request, which was denied
4
on March 8, 2023, by “final administrative action order” by the Department’s Chief
ALJ, affirming the ALJ’s decision. Final Administrative Action Order, C.R. at 231.
Thereafter, Petitioner again requested reconsideration, which was disposed of by an
order denying reconsideration signed by the Acting Secretary of the Department.
Order Denying Reconsideration, C.R. at 239. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant
appeals of the orders at issue.
Petitioner lists six numbered issues in his brief, which may be
paraphrased as whether the Department failed to consider documents he claims to
have submitted to BHA, which are not in the record and the contents of which are
not described; whether the Department failed to consider whether his family was
financially qualified in the relevant period by not verifying income and qualified
expenses; and whether the Department “ignored” other appeals in which Petitioner
prevailed. Pet’r Br. at 6-7.
Petitioner’s brief presents a multitude of assertions lacking any
substantive citation to the record or identifiably relating the arguments to any
specific error. The brief presents a complaint, repeated in several permutations, that
BHA and the Department
did not decide the matter on the merits of ALL available
and provided documents, records, financial statements,
qualified expenses, notices, unemployment letters, logs
and transactions, despite being in possession of it all as
received by both facsimile mail (fax) and by [United
States] Mail with [United States Postal Service Form
3817], sent prior to due date, with receipt of prior to due
date.
Pet’r Br. at 10-12. Petitioner asserts that the Department did so in order to deny him
benefits, despite his success in other appeals, and that by doing so, prevented a
5
proper calculation of his income. Id. at 11. Petitioner makes further comparisons to
other appeals before BHA in which he prevailed that are not before the Court. Id. at
12-14. Within this discussion of other matters, Petitioner accuses the Department of
failing to verify his income. Id. at 14. Petitioner claims that the ALJ “did not permit
[Petitioner’s] rebuttal”; that the ALJ was “prejudiced or biased”; that the ALJ
refused an unidentified Exhibit A-3 after the record was closed;5 and that the child
support records he submitted were ignored and evidence of income “cherry-picked.”
Id. at 15. Finally, Petitioner contends that OSIG’s referral to the Department was
untimely. Id. at 16. Petitioner filed a reply brief that contains essentially the same
arguments.
The Department substantively responds that federal regulations require
it to establish and collect SNAP overissuance claims against households. 7 C.F.R.
§ 273.18(a)(2) (“[t]he State agency must establish and collect any claim by following
regulations”). The Department notes that it was not able to collect the SNAP
overissuance previously made without first permitting Petitioner to have full access
to due process rights regarding whether his household income exceeded income
limits; once that process was exhausted, the Department began the SNAP
overissuance collection process.
We are not able, based upon Petitioner’s brief, to discern any error of
law, lack of evidence supporting necessary findings of fact, or violation of
constitutional rights to support a reversal in this matter. In December 2015,
Petitioner was notified that his household was not eligible to receive SNAP benefits
5
The transcript indicates that the record was held open until November 18, 2022, for the
submission of Exhibits A-1 and A-2, id. at 33, C.R. at 275; A-1 was to be Petitioner’s response to
Department’s Exhibits C-11 to C-14, which he claimed not to have received, Exhibit A-1, C.R. at
174, and Exhibit A-2 is copies of child support records, C.R. at 177-200.
6
because the household’s income was over the limit for benefits. That determination
was stayed pending Petitioner’s unsuccessful appeals within the Department and in
the Courts, which finally reached an end in 2022, when Petitioner was finally denied
review by the United States Supreme Court. At that point, the Department initiated
the collections process for payment of benefits during the period of December 1,
2017, through August 31, 2018, while his first appeal before this Court was pending.
There is no dispute of these facts. At that point, the Department was required to seek
repayment of the overissuance of benefits to which Petitioner was not entitled during
the appeal period.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the Department’s Chief ALJ’s
March 8, 2023 final administrative action order affirming the ALJ’s decision and the
Department’s Acting Secretary’s April 6, 2023 order denying reconsideration.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita
7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Steven Burda, :
Petitioner :
: No. 401 C.D. 2023
v. : No. 552 C.D. 2023
:
Department of Human Services, :
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2024, the following orders are
AFFIRMED: the March 8, 2023 final administrative action order of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge and the April 6, 2023 order denying reconsideration of
the Acting Secretary.
_____________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
President Judge Emerita