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 decided to terminate appellant’s medical assistance coverage effective September 1, 2019, based on his failure to renew the coverage. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On August 9, 2019, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice to inform him that his medical assistance coverage would end effective September 1, 2019. On September 4, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On October 1, 2019, 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: November 15, 2019
Docket: 226482
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
Date: November 14, 2019
Docket: 226109
Examiner: Jamie L. Lomheim
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency properly assessed appellant’s needs in a Developmental Disabilities (DD) Screening Document, resulting in a reduction in his Consumer Directed Community Supports (CDCS) budget from $69,904.80 to $66,802.30. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s assessment as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 9, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform him that his CDCS budget would decrease from $69,904.80 to $66,802.30 for the period of May 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Exhibit 1, Attachment 7 . On May 16, 2019, filed an appeal on appellant’s behalf. Exhibit A. 2. On July 5, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. Following the hearing, the record closed. 3. The human services judge continued the evidentiary hearing to September 6, 2019, in order to develop the record regarding appellant’s DD screening documents, which were not submitted prior to the hearing on July 5, 2019. On September 6, 2019, the record closed again, consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 2
Date: November 13, 2019
Docket: 222871
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether County correctly assessed an overpayment of medical assistance (MA) from January 1, 2019, through April 30, 2019, totaling $4,444.46. Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services affirm the Agency’s decision. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On September 9, 2019, County (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action informing Appellant that it was assessing an overpayment of MA benefits totaling $4,444.46. Exhibit 1; ’s Testimony . On September 12, 2019, Appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit 1 . 2. On October 9, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter via telephone conference. On October 9, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: November 07, 2019
Docket: 226721
Examiner: Richard Osburn
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency correctly determined that the Appellant was eligible for 9 units per day of Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services because she was no longer dependent in transferring. Recommended Decision: Affirm the Agency’s decision. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On July 2, 2019, County (the Agency) sent (the Appellant) a written notice of action informing the Appellant that, based on the current assessment conducted for the Appellant, the Appellant qualified for 9 units of daily personal care assistance (PCA) services as of August 1, 2019. Exhibit 1. On September 19, 2019, the Appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit 1. 2. On October 17, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On October 17, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 2
Date: November 07, 2019
Docket: 226928
Examiner: Richard Osburn
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant’s Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services should be reduced from 6.25 hours per day to 4.75 hours per day because appellant was no longer dependent in the activities of daily living (ADL) of transfers, mobility, and positioning. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On June 11, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform him that, based on a current PCA assessment, appellant qualified for 4.75 hours of daily PCA services as of August 2, 2019. Exhibit 1, Attachment A . On August 16, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On September 10, 2019, 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: November 07, 2019
Docket: 225937
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that the appellant was eligible for 14 service units (210 minutes or 3.5 hours) of PCA time per day. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On July 3, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that, based on a PCA reassessment conducted that day, appellant qualified for 3.5 hours of daily personal care assistance (PCA) services as of August 19, 2019. Exhibit 1, Attachment 1 . On August 8, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On September 4, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open following the hearing at appellant’s request so that she could submit a letter explaining her illness and a copy of her previous PCA assessment. These items were not submitted, and the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: November 05, 2019
Docket: 225641
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that the appellant was eligible for 5.0 hours per day of Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On July 26, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform him that, based on a current PCA assessment of appellant, he qualified for 20 service units 2 (300 minutes or 5 hours) of daily personal care assistance (PCA) services as of August 9, 2019. On August 12, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On September 4, 2019, 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. 3
Date: November 01, 2019
Docket: 225716
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant’s personal care assistance time should be reduced from 4 hours per day to 2.5 hours per day. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On June 26, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action to inform her that, based on a recent PCA reassessment, appellant’s PCA time would be reduced from 4 hours per day to 2.5 hours per day, effective August 1, 2019. On July 29, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On August 27, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. After the hearing, appellant submitted medical records that were received into the record as Exhibit B and provided to the agency for comment. The agency did not comment. On September 3, 2019, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: November 01, 2019
Docket: 225290
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant was eligible for 3 hours per day of Personal Care Assistance (PCA) services. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On May 28, 2019, County (the agency) conducted a PCA reassessment of appellant. Sometime later, the agency provided with a copy of the written reassessment (but not a Notice of Action) that said appellant qualified for 3 hours of PCA time per day, effective June 1, 2019. Exhibit 1 . On August 5, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On August 29, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open following the evidentiary hearing so that the agency could provide information about whether temporary PCA services were provided to appellant. The agency’s response, dated September 9, 2019, was included in the appeal record and provided to for comment, if any. did not comment, and the record was closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: November 01, 2019
Docket: 225502
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
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