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 2000
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that the appellant’s Personal Care Assistance (PCA) time should be reduced from 5.25 hours per day to 4.75 hours per day. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 24, 2019, (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that, based on a PCA assessment conducted on December 11, 2019, appellant’s PCA time would be reduced from 5.25 hours per day to 4.75 hours per day effective on January 4, 2020. On January 2, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On February 13, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On the same date, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: March 10, 2020
Docket: 230826
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to deny appellants’ requests to start their MinnesotaCare coverage on January 1, 2020, and to apply $122 they paid on December 16, 2019, to coverage in a future month. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 24, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) started MinnesotaCare coverage for and (appellants) retroactive to December 1, 2019, and applied their premium payment of $122 to coverage in that month. Exhibit 1 . On January 8, 2020, appellants filed an appeal and requested that their coverage not start until January 1, 2020, and that their premium payment be applied to coverage in a future month. Exhibit A . 2. On February 6, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On the same date, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: March 05, 2020
Docket: 231311
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to disenroll appellant from the MinnesotaCare program for failing to cooperate with the agency in the eligibility renewal process. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 5, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that her MinnesotaCare coverage would end effective on January 1, 2020, because she did not complete the renewal process. Exhibit 1, Attachment B . On January 2, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On January 30, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open after the hearing, at appellant’s request, so that she could submit a written response to the agency’s appeal summary. No response was received. On February 28, 2020, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: March 04, 2020
Docket: 231027
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant’s Personal Care Assistance (PCA) time should be reduced from 3.75 hours per day to zero. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 3, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that she no longer qualified for PCA services, and they would end on January 1, 2020. On January 9, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On February 4, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On the same date, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: March 03, 2020
Docket: 231179
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to terminate appellant’s medical assistance coverage effective on January 1, 2020, for failing to respond to the agency’s periodic data matching. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 9, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a Health Care Notice to inform her that she did not qualify for medical assistance or MinnesotaCare because she failed to provide renewal information requested by the agency. Exhibit 1, Attachment C . On December 19, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On January 23, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On February 13, 2020, the agency was given an opportunity to respond to appellant’s testimony about when she notified the agency of her address change. A copy of the agency’s response was provided to appellant for a reply. Appellant did not reply. The record was closed on February 24, 2020, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: February 27, 2020
Docket: 230312
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided that appellant’s medical assistance coverage should be terminated because she failed to respond to periodic data matching. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 9, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a “Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare Closing Notice for Unresolved Discrepancy” to inform her that her medical assistance coverage would end effective on January 1, 2020, because she did not complete and return a “Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare Discrepancy Response Form.” Exhibit 1 . On December 31, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On January 28, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was left open following the hearing for ten days, at appellant’s request, so that she could submit a written response to the agency’s appeal summary. No response was received. On February 7, 2020, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: February 25, 2020
Docket: 230848
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that the effective date of appellant’s MinnesotaCare coverage was March 1, 2020. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On February 3, 2020, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a Health Care Notice to inform her that she and her spouse, , were eligible for MinnesotaCare coverage with an “effective date” of February 1, 2020. Exhibit 1, Attachment A . Also on February 3, 2020, the agency sent appellant a first premium notice, stating that coverage would start in March 2020 if a premium payment of $32 was made by noon on the last working day of February. Exhibit 1, Attachment B . On February 6, 2020, filed an appeal on appellant’s behalf. 2 Exhibit A . 2. On February 20, 2020, the human services judge held an expedited evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. Appellant was given an opportunity after the evidentiary hearing to submit a written response to the agency’s appeal summary because she had not received a copy of it before the evidentiary hearing. No response was submitted. On February 21, 2020, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 3
Date: February 25, 2020
Docket: 232478
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to terminate medical assistance coverage for appellant and members of her household after November 2019 because she did not complete the renewal process. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On November 8, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that medical assistance coverage for appellant and other members of her household of seven would stop after November 2019 because appellant failed to complete a renewal. On December 26, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On January 2, 2020, the Appeals Division sent appellant a Notice of Telephone Hearing to be held on January 21, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. On January 16, 2020, the evidentiary hearing was rescheduled to January 24, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. 3. On January 24, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On the same date, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: February 24, 2020
Docket: 230593
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: • Whether County (Agency) properly assessed the Appellant’s personal care attendant (PCA) services as 6.0 hours per day. Recommended Decision: • REVERSE the Agency’s decision that the number of the Appellant’s daily PCA hours be 6 hours and order that the Appellant’s daily PCA hours be 7 hours per day. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On June 14, 2019 Agency sent Appellant a written notice of action informing him that it had assessed his PCA hours as 6.0 hours per day which was a decrease from the 10.5 hours assessment in 2018 which was done by a different agency. Exhibit 1. The Appellant filed an appeal on July 22, 2019 with the Agency which was received by the Appeals Division on July 25, 2019. Exhibit 2. 2. A hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2019. The Appellant failed to appear at that hearing and his appeal was dismissed on August 14, 2019. The Appellant requested reconsideration of his appeal on August 23, 2019. Exhibit 3. The Appellant submitted documentation that showed that he was in a nursing home recovering from brain surgery from July 30, 2019 until August 15, 2019. Exhibit 3. The Appellant’s file was reopened on August 28, 2019. Exhibit 4 . 3. On October 1, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone. The record closed at the end of the hearing and consists of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 2
Date: February 21, 2020
Docket: 225034
Examiner: Ellen Longfellow
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotment for October 2019 on a prorated basis from October 25 – October 31, 2019. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination that appellant’s October 2019 SNAP allotment should be prorated from October 25 – October 31, 2019. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. 2019. Exhibit 1. (appellant) re-applied for SNAP with the agency on October 25, 2. On October 25, 2019, County Family Support (agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of decision informing her that her prorated SNAP allotment for October 2019 was $153. Exhibit 1. On November 24, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit 2. 3. On January 2, 2020, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open for one week for additional information from the agency. On January 9, 2020, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: February 21, 2020
Docket: 229155
Examiner: Ellen Longfellow
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