Perdue v. Gargano
964 N.E.2d 825
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Indiana Family and Social Services Administration administers Medicaid, Food Stamps, and TANF and uses automated processing and notices to inform applicants of adverse determinations.
- Plaintiffs include Class A, Sub-class A, Class C and Sheila Perdue, challenging due process notices, denial based on alleged 'failure to cooperate', and ADA/RA accommodations for Perdue.
- Interviews, Form 2032 documenting required verifications, and the process for collecting documents drive eligibility; failure to submit can lead to denial or discontinuation.
- Adverse-action notices contain codes (e.g., 'failure to cooperate') but provide no detailed, individualized factual basis for the denial.
- Lower court granted summary judgment to the State on some issues; plaintiffs obtained partial success on notice adequacy and Perdue’s accommodation claims, leading to appellate review.
- Court reverses in part: notices are constitutionally inadequate for due process; federal law permits denial for failure to cooperate; Perdue is entitled to reasonable accommodations but not necessarily a caseworker/case management requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notices under due process | Class A argues notices lack specific underlying reasons for denial. | Gargano contends notices along with forms sufficed and process was multi-step. | Notices inadequate; must include individualized factual bases. |
| Effect of 'failure to cooperate' on Food Stamp eligibility | Class C asserts denial for failure to cooperate violates federal law. | State contends federal law permits denial for failure to cooperate under 7 U.S.C. § 2015(c) and 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(d)(1). | Federal law permits denial when applicant fails to cooperate. |
| ADA/RA accommodations for Perdue during application | Perdue entitled to reasonable accommodations to access benefits due to hearing impairment. | State argues insufficient evidence of disability and impact; not necessarily entitled to caseworker. | FSSA violated ADA and RA; entitled to reasonable accommodation, not required to provide caseworker. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1985) (inadvertent error exception to due process is narrow)
- Vargas v. Trainor, 508 F.2d 485 (7th Cir. 1974) (due process requires reasons for adverse action)
- Banks v. Trainor, 525 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1975) (necessity of informing with individualized calculations)
- Dilda v. Quern, 612 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1980) (adequate notice must reveal underlying calculations)
- Ortiz v. Eichler, 616 F. Supp. 1046 (D. Del. 1985) (minimum due process requires what the claimant was required to do and how they failed)
- Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2005) (two-letter notice approach where notices come after adverse action)
- Baker v. State, Dept. of Health and Soc. Servs., 191 P.3d 1005 (Alaska 2008) (amalgamated notices cannot substitute for explicit written reasons)
- Choate v. Wis., 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985) (meaningful access requires more than eligibility entitlement; accommodation scope broader than mere eligibility)