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 54
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency properly assessed Appellant’s daily personal care assistance services at 5.75 hours (345 minutes, 23 units), based on the Agency’s latest assessment of Appellant’s needs.
Date: July 24, 2017
Docket: 194996
Examiner: John Freeman
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency properly terminated appellant’s eligibility for daily personal care assistance services based on the latest assessment of his needs. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 29, 2017, County (“agency”) sent (“appellant”) a written notice of action. Agency Exhibit 1. The notice informed appellant that, based on the current assessment of his needs, he no longer qualified for daily personal care assistance (“PCA”) services as of June 1, 2017. Id. Appellant either did not receive or did not understand the notice of action, and learned of the PCA services termination when his personal care assistant stopped visiting him. Appellant Exhibit A; Testimony of Appellant. This realization came fewer than 30 days before appellant submitted an appeal request on June 16, 2017. Id. On July 19, 2017, Human Services Judge John Freeman held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference, attended by appellant and an agency representative. At the end of the hearing, the record was closed consisting of the testimony of the parties and two exhibits. 1
Date: July 24, 2017
Docket: 195144
Examiner: John Freeman
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly terminate CADI waiver services because her needs may be met with state planned services.
Date: July 20, 2017
Docket: 193432
Examiner: Victoria M. Lemberger
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency correctly denied Mr. emergency assistance. application for
Date: July 14, 2017
Docket: 194926
Examiner: Munazza Humayun
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency properly submitted a Revenue Recapture claim to the Minnesota Department of Revenue for $680 charged for Appellant’s medical care at the County Evaluation Center.
Date: July 11, 2017
Docket: 194466
Examiner: John Freeman
Whether the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) properly determined Appellant’s household MinnesotaCare coverage effective date.
Date: July 07, 2017
Docket: 188221
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether Appellant’s participation in the Elderly Waiver program properly ended as of January 1, 2016, because Appellant was not reassessed for eligibility at the end of 2015 and a new service agreement was not entered into.
Date: July 06, 2017
Docket: 191409
Examiner: John Freeman
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly denied emergency assistance because the appellant did not complete the process in a timely manner.
Date: July 06, 2017
Docket: 194629
Examiner: Victoria M. Lemberger
Whether the Health Plan correctly denied Appellant’s request for coverage of Stay Fit Aquatics program.
Date: July 05, 2017
Docket: 192512
Examiner: Wendy M. Savakes
The issue raised in this appeal are: Whether County correctly denied ’ application for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits effective March 1, 2017.
Date: June 30, 2017
Docket: 193709
Examiner: Scott R. Johnson
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