Green v. Department of Social & Health Services
163 Wash. App. 494
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Green, a disabled recipient, challenged her Basic Food monthly allotment for March 2007 to June 2008, claiming earned income deductions from former WAC 388-450-0175 (2006) should have been applied to Basic Food income.
- The Department used former WAC 388-450-0185 (2007) to determine countable income, but did not apply 0175 (2006) deductions to Basic Food calculations for Green.
- An ALJ rejected Green’s challenge; the superior court later reversed, certifying a class and awarding attorney fees to Green.
- The Department appealed, arguing 0175 (2006) is ambiguous in scope and should not apply to Basic Food; the regulations align with federal SNAP rules only for GA-U.
- The Supreme Court ultimately held that 0175 (2006) was ambiguous and the Department’s interpretation—limiting its deductions to GA-U—was reasonable and entitled to deference, reinstating the ALJ’s order and denying class certification and attorney fees.
- The decision references federal standards under 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.9 and 273.10 and cites related state regulatory context to assess scope and consistency with federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does former WAC 388-450-0175 (2006) apply to Basic Food calculations? | Green: apply 0175(2006) deductions to Basic Food income. | Department: 0175(2006) applies only to GA-U; not to Basic Food. | Ambiguity; department’s GA-U scope reasonable; 0175(2006) not applied to Basic Food |
| Should the Department’s interpretation of an ambiguous regulation receive deference? | Green contends the regulation unambiguously requires application to Basic Food. | Department: ambiguity warrants deference to its interpretation. | Court deferentially defers to agency interpretation |
| Is former WAC 388-450-0162 controlling to determine the scope of 0175(2006)? | 0162(1)(b) supports broad application of 0175(2006). | 0162 cross-references are program-specific; 0175(2006) may be GA-U only. | Ambiguity remains; regulatory scheme requires deference |
| May Green’s challenge proceed as a class action given APA review grounds? | Green seeks class-wide relief for underpayments March 2007–June 2008. | Class certification improper; merits require individual review. | Superior court’s class action order reversed; no class remedy |
| Is Green entitled to attorney fees on appeal under RCW 74.08.080? | If prevailing, Green entitled to fees. | No prevailing outcome for Green; fees denied. | Attorney-fee award reversed; no fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Overlake Hosp. Ass'n v. Dept. of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43 (2010) (agency expertise supports deference when regulation ambiguous)
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68 (2000) (statutory/regulatory interpretation standards in APA review)
- Granger v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 159 Wn.2d 752 (2007) (regulations inconsistent with statutes invalid)
- Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909 (2008) (agency interpretation given deference when within expertise)
- Tapper v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 122 Wn.2d 397 (1993) (APA review framework and burdens on challenging agency orders)