The petitioner, Patricia M. Kalar, has petitioned for a writ of certiorari, see SUP. Ct. R. 11, challenging the reduction of her benefits by the respondent, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (department), pursuant to the Food Stamp Act. See 7 U.S.C. § 2011 (2006); RSA 161:2, XIII (Supp. 2010). We affirm.
The record supports the following facts. The petitioner is the disabled mother of two disabled sons. She has received assistance under the Food Stamp Act since at least April 2006. In July 2006, the department conducted an inquiry into the petitioner’s income and expenses for the purpose of calculating her food stamp benefits. Following this inquiry, the department issued a Notice of Decision (NOD), which reduced the petitioner’s monthly food stamp allotment based on the denial of certain claimed income deductions. The petitioner then requested a “fair hearing” before the department. See RSA 126-A:5, VIII (Supp. 2010). After a pre-hearing conference, however, the department ultimately permitted the disputed deductions and reinstated the petitioner’s original food stamp allotment. No hearing was held at that time.
In July 2008, the department again conducted an inquiry into the petitioner’s income and expenses as part of the mandatory, periodic “recertification” process for determining the petitioner’s food stamp benefits.
See
RSA 161:2, XIII; 7 C.F.R.
In its decision, the department explained that the reduction in the petitioner’s food stamp benefits occurred because various expenses deducted from the petitioner’s income were not permissible medical deductions under the federal regulations governing the Food Stamp Act. The petitioner objected to this determination, asserting that the expenses were, in fact, medically necessary and permissible as “excess medical deductions.” See 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3). Specifically, she asserted that private school tuition and school transportation expenses for her sons, expenses incurred for transportation to medical appointments for herself and her sons, cellular telephone service expenses, and expenses related to bowling and other sports activities for her sons were all medically necessary and, therefore, entitled to treatment as “excess medical deductions” under the federal regulations. Aternatively, the petitioner argued that the types of deductions found impermissible by the department had previously been reviewed and found to be permissible following the 2006 pre-hearing conference with the department. The petitioner argued, therefore, that the department was bound by its 2006 determination to permit such deductions.
The petitioner appealed the March 2009 NOD and requested a fair hearing by the department. The hearings officer upheld the department’s decision that private school tuition, school transportation expenses, cellular telephone service expenses, and bowling and other sports activities expenses failed to qualify as excess medical deductions under the federal regulations. The hearings officer found, however, that transportation to and from medical appointments did qualify as an excess medical deduction, at a rate of $.21 per mile, and reversed the department’s decision on that issue.
The petitioner requests that we reverse the hearings officer’s decision, arguing that the hearings officer erred by: (1) finding that her sons’ school tuition and expenses relating to school transportation, cellular telephone services, and bowling and other sports activities did not qualify as excess • medical deductions; (2) failing to rule that the department was barred from disallowing those expenses because of its 2006 allowance of such deductions; and (3) failing to conclude that the department discriminated against her on the basis of disability. We address each argument in turn.
“The only judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the [department] is by petition for a writ of certiorari.”
Petition of Walker,
The federal government enacted the Food Stamp Act of 1964 in an attempt to raise the level of nutrition in low-income households. See 7 U.S.C. § 2011. The New Hampshire legislature amended RSA 161:2 in 1974 to include section XIII, which states that the department “shall . . . [d]evelop and administer a food stamp program within the state under the provisions of the Federal Food Stamp Act of 1964 . . . and in accordance with Federal Regulations duly promulgated by the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.” RSA 161:2, XIII.
Federal regulations permit certain deductions from a participant’s income in calculating a household budget under the Food Stamp Act. 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d). The deductions at issue in this case relate to a category of deductions designated as “excess medical deductions,” which are defined as “that portion of medical expenses in excess of $35 per month, excluding special diets, incurred by any household member who is elderly or disabled . ...” 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3).
The petitioner first argues that her sons’ private school tuition and expenses relating to school transportation, cellular telephone services, and bowling and other sports activities should be permitted as excess medical deductions from her income. We disagree.
An “excess medical deduction” is defined as follows:
(i) Medical and dental care including psychotherapy and rehabilitation services provided by a licensed practitioner authorized by State law or other qualified health professional.
(ii) Hospitalization or outpatient treatment, nursing care, and nursing home care. . . .
(iii) Prescription drugs when prescribed by a licensed practitioner authorized under State law and other over-the-counter medication (including insulin) when approved by a licensed practitioner or other qualified health professional; in addition, costs of medical supplies, sick-room equipment (including rental) or other prescribed equipment are deductible;
(iv) Health and hospitalization insurance policy premiums. . . .
(v) Medicare premiums ....
(vi) Dentures, hearing aids, and prosthetics;
(vii) Securing and maintaining a seeing eye or hearing dog ....
(viii) Eye glasses prescribed by a physician ....
(ix) Reasonable cost of transportation and lodging to obtain medical treatment or services;
(x) Maintaining an attendant, homemaker, home health aide, or child care services, housekeeper, necessary due to age, infirmity, or illness.. ..
7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3)(i)-(x) (emphases added).
Because the petitioner’s sons’ school tuition does not fall under any of the ten categories listed as allowable excess medical deductions, we conclude that the hearings officer did not act either illegally or unreasonably in disallowing the tuition expenses as deductions.
See Petition of Chase,
Similarly, the petitioner’s expenses for bowling and other extracurricular
As to the petitioner’s cellular telephone expenses, such are plainly not listed in the federal regulations as allowable excess medical deductions. The petitioner concedes that she receives a deduction for telephone service as part of her utility expense, and nothing within the regulations specifies cellular telephone service expenses as allowable medical deductions. Accordingly, the hearings officer’s decisión to disallow the deduction of these expenses was neither illegal nor unreasonable.
See Petition of Chase,
The petitioner next argues that because the department permitted the petitioner, in the past, to deduct the disputed categories of expenses from her income for the purpose of determining her food stamp benefits, the department cannot now rely on the federal regulations to disallow such expenses as deductions.
To the extent the petitioner makes this argument under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, her argument fails. In its most basic formulation, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party to a prior action, or a person in privity with such a party, from relitigating any issue or fact actually litigated and determined in the prior action.
See Gray v. Kelly,
Here, the prior “decision” to permit the petitioner’s claimed deductions was not rendered by an administrative board, nor did it occur in the context of litigation. Indeed, according to the petitioner, the allowance of the deductions occurred as a result of a meeting between the petitioner and an employee of a district office of the department. “It is well established that collateral estoppel may be invoked to preclude reconsideration of an issue only when the issue has been actually litigated.”
Petition of Concord Teachers,
Further, pursuant to RSA 161:2, XIII, the department is to ensure compliance with the federal regulations. Thus, to the extent that, in the past, the department allowed deduction of the types of expenses at issue, such would not constitute a final resolution of this issue on the merits because the department must continue to inquire into the petitioner’s claimed deductions as part of the “recertification” process
The petitioner’s argument is similarly unsuccessful if interpreted as one based upon the doctrine of administrative gloss. The doctrine of administrative gloss is a rule of statutory construction.
DHB v. Town of Pembroke,
We are the final arbiters of the legislature’s intent as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.
In re Juvenile
2004-469,
RSA 161:2, XIII mandates that the department “shall... administer a food stamp program ... under the provisions of the Federal Food Stamp Act of 1964.” Therefore, by its express terms, RSA 161:2, XIII requires the department to comply with federal regulations in its administration of the food stamp program. Moreover, as noted above, 7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3) recites a specific and detailed list of expenses allowable as excess medical deductions from a participant’s income for purposes of the food stamp program. Thus, we conclude there is no ambiguity in the state statute or the federal regulations that would permit the application of the doctrine of administrative gloss to this case. Accordingly, we reject the argument that the department’s earlier allowance of the disputed categories of expenses now prevents the department from complying with the federal regulations as mandated by State law.
Finally, the petitioner argues that the department violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by subjecting her to discrimination on the basis of disability. Specifically, she asserts that “[t]he department has refused ... to make any modifications to their policies, practices or procedures to make reasonable accommodations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to attain an equal opportunity to benefit from this program.”
To the extent feasible, courts look to decisions construing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting federal grant recipients from discriminating against people with disabilities) to assist in interpreting analogous provisions of the ADA.
Patton v. TIC United Corp.,
In
Alexander v. Choate,
the United States Supreme Court held that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act “requires that an otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with
meaningful access
to the benefit that the grantee offers.”
Alexander v. Choate,
Based on the record in this case, we cannot conclude that the petitioner was denied such access. She fully participated in the food stamp program, and was given the benefit of allowable excess medical deductions. Moreover, the excess medical deductions provision of the regulations is applicable solely to expenses incurred by elderly or disabled persons, thus belying her claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability.
See
7 C.F.R. § 273.9(d)(3). That the extent of allowable excess
medical deductions may be insufficient to meet the petitioner’s needs does not amount to a denial of meaningful program access under the ADA.
See Patton,
We note that to the extent the petitioner argues the food stamp program discriminates against those with severe disabilities, the United States Supreme Court has explained that “[i]t is not required that any benefit extended to one category of individual with a disability also be extended to all other categories of individual with a
Affirmed.