29 Pa. Commw. 150 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1977
Opinion by
On or about July 30, 1973, while she was receiving public assistance, Nellie St. Clair (appellant) received a check for $1005.40, representing delayed, lump-sum Social Security (SSI) widow’s benefits payable to her. Shortly thereafter she brought the check to her caseworker who attempted, unsuccessfully at first, to determine the exact nature of appellant’s SSI benefits. Ascertaining the amount of appellant’s monthly benefits was apparently necessary to determine appellant’s continuing eligibility for public. assistance. At this meeting appellant was asked to, and did, sign a Form 176-K, which is a promise to reimburse the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) for assistance re
On August 3, 1973, appellant was called in to verify the amount of her monthly check. The caseworker testified that at that meeting “reimbursement was again explained to her [appellant], the fact that she did owe the money to the Commonwealth, had signed the agreement, and why, you know, we felt that she owed the money to the Commonwealth. And at that point, it would have been explained to her that she could either sign the checlc over at that time and we would forward it, or that Claims Settlement would eventually be calling upon her about this claim — this reimbursement claim — and would refer the information to them.” (Emphasis added.) Appellant signed the check over at that time. She was not informed that under Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413 (1973), such payments were not, in fact, recoverable by the Claims Settlement Division through legal process. The Philpott decision was handed down on January 10, 1973.
Subsequently, on being informed that her cheek was, at least arguably, collected improperly, appellant filed a request for a “Fair Hearing”
This was clearly error, and we must reverse. We find this case to be controlled by Wohlgemuth v. Arma
DPW argues that appellant’s claim should have been pursued before the Board of Finance and Revenue rather than through the route of a “Fair Hearing.” Although DPW itself accepted the procedure followed at the outset and should not be heard to say that the procedure was improper when such contention was rejected in both Good, supra, and Armacost, supra, we believe the instant case to be sufficiently similar to the case of Coshey v. Beal, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 440, 366 A.2d 1295 (1976), to justify here the extraordinary remedy permitted in Goshey.
Therefore, we make the following
Order
Now, this 10th day of March, 1977, the order of the Department of Public Welfare in the above captioned ease is reversed. Leave is hereby granted to Nellie St. Clair to petition nunc pro tunc the Board of Finance and Revenue for a refund of her monies wrong
As provided in PA Manual §3590.