188 A.3d 840
D.C.2018Background
- Donna Black, long-time TANF recipient, had monthly TANF cuts after exceeding federal 60-month limit; one minor daughter received SSI for learning/speech disabilities for years.
- POWER is a D.C. locally funded alternative to TANF for households unable to meet TANF work requirements due to incapacity or need to care for an incapacitated household member; POWER payments equal full TANF, without the 60-month federal limit.
- DHS is statutorily required to screen TANF applicants/recipients for POWER at application, recertification, or when incapacity is raised; POWER eligibility based on caring for an incapacitated household member must be determined under POWER-specific rules.
- Black was not screened for POWER at her February 2014 recertification (post-October 2013 POWER expansion). DHS later approved prospective POWER benefits effective October 1, 2015 after a 2015 screening.
- OAH denied Black retroactive POWER benefits, reasoning she failed to present "competent medical testimony" of her daughter’s incapacity (relying on TANF incapacity language); Black appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a child's SSI eligibility automatically proves POWER eligibility | Black: Daughter's SSI designation is acceptable proof of incapacity and thus makes household POWER-eligible as a matter of law | DHS: POWER statute contains its own incapacity definition and proof standards; TANF's SSI-proof provision does not govern POWER | Court: POWER statute controls; TANF §4-205.42(1)(D) does not automatically confer POWER eligibility |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on TANF's "competent medical testimony" requirement | Black: ALJ misapplied the law by ignoring SSI proof provision (or should have applied POWER's standards to the record) | DHS: ALJ correctly required competent medical evidence to prove incapacity under POWER | Court: ALJ erred in looking to TANF rather than POWER; POWER's standards govern, so ALJ applied wrong legal standard |
| Whether Black preserved claim for retroactive POWER benefits | Black: Pro se filings and OAH's subsequent adjudication preserved the claim | DHS: Claim forfeited/waived for not raising specific legal argument timely | Court: Claim preserved because ALJ ruled on retroactive POWER; appellate argument permitted even if not precisely argued below |
| Remedy: whether remand/affirmance appropriate given record | Black: DHS failed to screen at recertification (Feb 2014); remand for retroactive screening and benefits | DHS: Even under POWER, Black presented no competent medical evidence, so no retroactive relief warranted | Court: Remand required—DHS must promptly perform retroactive POWER screening to February 2014; OAH decision reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dupree v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corr., 132 A.3d 150 (D.C. 2016) (failure to preserve administrative claims generally forfeits review)
- Bostic v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 162 A.3d 170 (D.C. 2017) (extraordinary circumstances required to consider claims not timely presented)
- Rodriguez v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 145 A.3d 1005 (D.C. 2016) (appellate review may consider issues that were passed upon below even if not fully pressed)
- Yates v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 149 A.3d 248 (D.C. 2016) (standards for affirming administrative decisions: findings, substantial evidence, rational legal conclusions)
- Sherman v. Comm’n on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, 407 A.2d 595 (D.C. 1979) (agency decisions ordinarily must be sustained only on grounds relied upon by the agency)