skip to content
Primary navigation

Appeals Archive

As part of our commitment to transparency, we make DHS appeals decisions available to the public in this appeals archive.

Results 1 - 10 of 254
Date: May 03, 2018
Docket: 193011
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Commissioner of Human Services has jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the Agency’s maltreatment determination.
Date: April 16, 2018
Docket: 206035
Examiner: John Freeman
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the county agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent committed an intentional program violation(s) of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and General Assistance (GA).
Date: April 05, 2018
Docket: 204584
Testimony of Appellant. Appellant testified that she was not sitting on the Student, and that she did not understand how someone could be on one’s knees and sitting on someone at same time. Id. Regarding the placement of her hands over those of the Student, Appellant testified that this was done “to prevent when he would go to whack me.” Id. g. Appellant testified that she next sent for help, which led to and entering the room. Testimony of Appellant. Appellant testified that she then sent for more help with restraining the Student because had a preexisting injury, which led to entering the room. Id. Appellant testified that she did recall telling Appellant to get off the Student, but Appellant stated that she does not recall how she got up, adding that she was confused during this stage. Id. Appellant also testified that she was unable to get off the Student, and noted that she had had a herniated disc in her back since January 2015. Id. Appellant acknowledged that she may have been helped off the Student. Id. h. Appellant denied restricting or impairing the Student’s ability to breathe during the incident. Testimony of Appellant. Regarding whether Appellant restricted the Student’s ability to communicate distress, Appellant replied “Not that I recall at all, no.” Id. Regarding whether Appellant placed pressure or weight on the Student’s head, throat, or neck, Appellant replied “Not that I recall, no.” Id. Regarding whether Appellant placed pressure or weight on the Student’s chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, or back, Appellant replied “Not that I recall.” Id. Appellant denied ever placing her hands around the Student’s neck or striking the Student. Id. Appellant denied pushing the Student’s face or head into the beanbag as she got off the Student. Id. Appellant further denied that her actions were intended to punish the Student or to reform unacceptable conduct. Id. Appellant testified that she used calming language with the Student. Id. i. Appellant testified that her injuries from the incident included a concussion, eye injury, and tooth injury, and that she continues to be treated for the concussion and eye injury. Testimony of Appellant. Appellant also testified that she was shocked and confused during the incident, and that the concussion may have contributed to her confusion. Id.
Date: March 08, 2018
Docket: 199930
Examiner: John Freeman
The issues raised in this appeal are 1. Whether there is a preponderance of evidence that the Appellant maltreated her minor children by failing to supply them with necessary food, clothing, shelter, health, medical, or other care required for their physical or mental health when she was reasonably able to do so. 2. Whether there is a preponderance of evidence that the Appellant maltreated her minor children by filing to protect them from conditions that seriously endangered their physical or mental health when she was reasonably able to do so.
Date: February 21, 2018
Docket: 201936
Date: January 24, 2018
Docket: 195555
Examiner: Jonathan R. Hall
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency properly denied reimbursement of child care costs incurred by Appellant from March 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017
Date: January 18, 2018
Docket: 202012
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the county agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent committed an intentional program violation(s).
Date: January 11, 2018
Docket: 200130
Examiner: Deborah L. Coxe
Date: January 11, 2018
Docket: 200683
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the appellant demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that he is eligible for additional Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services.
Date: January 10, 2018
Docket: 200737
loading dates...
Disclaimer: As part of its commitment to transparency, DHS makes publicly available this library of appeals decisions. Consistent with the requirements of applicable state and federal laws, protected information is removed from the decisions in this library. This library is not intended to give legal advice. You should not interpret these decisions as binding on anyone except the parties to the decision. The decisions are not precedent for any dispute between parties in the future. The laws affecting these programs may change frequently and information provided in this library of decisions may not reflect the current state of the law. The decisions also may be subject to further review. Therefore, please consult with a knowledgeable expert before you take action in reliance on any information provided here.
back to top