2 Pa. Commw. 110 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1971
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
Annie Bell Travis and her six'children reside at 344 Violet Way, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; In 1966, after her husband passed away, she applied for Social Security survivor’s benefits for her children. In Sepr tember, 1966, the children were found eligible and received a Social Security lump sum benefit. From that date to the present the children receive monthly Social Security benefits. The entire family, including Annie Bell Travis,, also receives a welfare supplementary grant. .
At or about the time the Social Security lump sum benefit was paid, Annie Bell Travis and her caseworker discussed the possibility of retaining this lump stub, benefit and placing it in trust, to be applied toward the future educational costs of one or more of her children. By letter dated September 19, 1966, the.. caseworker wrote Mrs. Travis the following: “I spoke with my supervisor about saving some of the money for the children’s high school. This can only be done for schooling after high school. You must give a. certain , school on the forms, it must be recommended, by the high school, and approved by the State.”
Nothing further was done by anyone until three years later when Mrs. Travis went to the Allegheny County Board of Assistance and requested a written explanation of. her assistance grant. This request was fulfilled by a letter dated September 10,, 1969. Two days later Mrs. Travis filed an appeal from the determination of her assistance grant, asserting that the Department of Public Assistance had made a mistake in determining the amount of the cash grant to which she was entitled. Mrs. Travis requested a State Hearing which was held on December 16, 1969.
On March 26,1970, Mr. Stanley A. Miller, Secretary of Public Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsyl
In September, 1966, the Department of Public Welfare had in effect Regulation 3231.1, entitled “Income and Personal Property Reserved for Education or Training”. The provisions of this regulation were as follows: “With prior approval from State Office, a client may retain certain resources for identified future needs of a child under 21 years of age, provided that: (a) There is a well-defined and specific plan for the child’s education or training which for implementation requires a current or future expenditure of funds not available from other sources, (b) The plan is financially feasible in terms of the stability of the resource
Mrs. Travis did not submit a plan in accordance with the regulation and naturally the State office did not approve or disapprove the retention of any resources for the education or training of her children. However, it is her contention, and the basis of her appeal, that it was the duty and obligation of the County Board of Assistance to bring forth a specific educational plan for her children. Mrs. Travis asserts that the obligation to identify family needs, and provide each client with the services he is eligible for, rests primarily on the County Board and not the recipient. This assertion implies that once the County Board knew of Mrs. Travis’s interest to consider the provisions of Regulation 3231.1, it became its obligation to maximize assistance. Mrs. Travis contends that this is inherent from Regulation 3511.2 of the Pennsylvania Public Assistance Manual which states that “[t]he County Office is responsible for giving to every person who asks for help the service appropriate to the Department’s function.”
Under our system of separation of powers, the courts may not set aside administrative actions in the absence of bad faith, fraud, capricious action or abuse of power. Harrington v. Tate, 435 Pa. 176, 254 A. 2d 622 (1969). In determining whether the Regulations of the Department of Public Welfare, or the interpretation of them, violate some right of a potential recipient of benefits, it must be remembered that receiving public assistance is not a constitutional right nor a property right of the recipient. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969).
As to eligibility for, and amount of, public assistance, the Pennsylvania Public Welfare Code provides that the Department of Public Welfare shall establish rules, regulations and standards consistent with the
In Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S. Ct. 1153, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491, reh. den., 398 U.S. 914, 90 S. Ct. 1684, 26 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1970), the United States Supreme Court pointed out that the federal courts would be reluctant to interfere with the decisions of state agencies as to how welfare money should be distributed among welfare recipients. Also, the United States Supreme Court has held that state- laws or regulations involving public assistance will not be invalidated on due process grounds or on any other constitutional grounds where they involve policy judgments by those responsible for the administration of assistance programs. See Snell v. Wyman, 281 F. Supp. 853 (1968), affirmed, 393 U.S. 323, 89 S. Ct. 553, 21 L. Ed. 2d 511 (1969).
The conclusion must be reached that, in the absence of bad faith, fraud or abuse, the Department of Public Welfare may exercise its discretion in administering all of its public assistance programs to achieve the most equitable distribution of benefits for those in need. Here, in addition to there being no evidence of bad
This appeal is taken pursuant to the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P. L. 1388, and Section 44, 71 P.S. §1710.44, provides that “. . . [a]fter hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find . . . that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.” Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Pennsylvania, Labor Relations Board v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc., 345 Pa. 398, 29 A. 2d 90 (1942). In Pennsylvania Insurance Department v. Johnson, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 138, 142, 238 A. 2d 23, 25 (1967), it was stated: “The reviewing court should not interfere where an administrative agency is clothed with discretion in the discharge of its duty unless the record clearly establishes that there has been a violation of positive law or an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable determination due to the absence of substantive evidence to support its findings.” We find no absence of substantive evidence here.
Accordingly, we enter the following
Order
And Now, May 10, 1971, the appeal of Annie Bell Travis from the decision of the Secretary of Public Welfare refusing the exclusion of her children’s Social Security benefits for cash grant determination and for re
Concurrence Opinion
Concurring Opinion by
I am in agreement with Judge Mencer’s conclusion which reads as follows: “. . . [I]n the absence of bad faith, fraud or abuse the Department of Public Welfare may exercise its discretion in administering all of its public assistance programs to achieve the most equitable distribution of benefits for those in need. Here; in addition to there being no evidence of bad faith, fraud or abuse, there was simply no compliance by Mrs. Travis with the provisions of the regulation in question and, therefore, no evidence in the record to support her claim of eligibility for the benefit she seeks. Further, we find no authority, statute or case that would create a duty on the County Board of Public Assistance to do more than was done for Mrs. Travis and her children in this case.” It is clear that there was no legal duty to perform the functions requested by Mrs. Travis and her claim was properly dismissed. However, I am constrained to go beyond the legal disposition of this claim and make mention of the moral and practical ramifications involved herein.
I have found that all too often in the adndnistration of the Commonwealth’s programs designed to benefit its citizens, the needs of these beneficiaries give way to the strict adherence to agency policies and guidelines. The very people engaged to aid the disadvantaged are hindered in the best performance of their duties by the unnecessary rigidity of the decision making apparatus inherent in the American bureaucracy. Governments seem afraid to allow their grass roots employees to deal with people as people with individual needs and problems. This seems especially true in the area of public assistance.
But rehabilitation and economic and social stability cannot be channeled through rigid programs. It must be the purpose of every welfare agency in this country to attack and solve the problems of every disadvantaged individual. They must not hide behind the facade of policy or power structure to avoid helping any individual reaching for help.
Admittedly, the County Board of Public Assistance had no legal duty to aid Mrs. Travis in her attempt to qualify for educational trust benefits. It had no duty to see that her application was properly processed to finality. But it should have wanted to see her qualify, if a,t all possible. It should have wanted to help in Mrs. Travis’ own individual and unique situation. The Board should not erect prohibitive safeguards against the misappropriation of welfare funds by strict regulation of their availability but rather should tailor procedure and funds to the needs of the individual. This must necessarily entail, therefore, the painstaking effort of understanding in solving the problems of every individual recipient.
While the courts of this Commonwealth are powerless to compel thoughtful administration of the state’s public assistance programs, it is not powerless to speak out for the welfare of its citizens. Thus, while this claim cannot find a legal solution to the problem, it
I concur.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
I dissent. By this decision reached today, this court has gone one step further in perpetuating the idea that public assistance is little more than a sophisticated term for the system of the dole.
Annie Bell Travis has lived most of her life on government welfare grants. In an attempt to procure for her children what she considered to be a better life, Mrs. Travis spoke with her caseworker about retaining a Social Security lump sum benefit received by her children for their future educational needs. This was in accord with a plan of the Department of Public Welfare which provided that funds for future educational needs could be set aside if among other things a specific plan for the child’s future education and a plan for the setting aside of the funds were in existence.
It is admitted that Mrs. Travis herself, a woman of limited formal education, never submitted a specific plan to the County Board of Public Assistance. However, it is uncontradicted that she spoke with her caseworker about such a plan and that the caseworker knew of the Social Security lump sum benefit and of Mrs. Travis’ desire to use this money to implement the plan. It is inconceivable that the Department of Public Welfare should now deny Mrs. Travis the chance to insure the future of her children because she failed to submit a detailed and specific plan for their future educational needs.
The spirit of what function public assistance is to perform is set out in Regulation 3511.2 of the Penn
I would reverse the decision and order the establishment of the educational fund in accordance with applicable requirements.
