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(s) raised in this appeal is/are: Whether the agency was correct when it terminated the appellant’s Medical Assistance effective December 1, 2019 because of the appellant’s failure to complete the renewal process. Recommended Decision: The agency was incorrect to terminate the appellant’s Medical Assistance coverage effective December 1, 2019 and its action should be reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. The agency sent the appellant written notice dated November 8, 2019 terminating the Appellant’s Medical Assistance coverage as of December 1, 2019. Exhibit 2, Attachment B. The Appellant filed an appeal with the state agency appeals summary on December 5, 2019. Exhibit 1. The Human Services Judge held a telephone hearing on January 6, 2020. The Human Services Judge accepted two exhibits 2 into evidence and closed the record at the end of the hearing.
Date: January 09, 2020
Docket: 229623
Examiner: Louis Thayer
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant became ineligible to receive medical assistance under a CADI (Community Access for Disability Inclusion) waiver because of his placement at and Whether the agency correctly determined that the effective date of termination of appellant’s CADI waiver was October 21, 2019. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination regarding appellant’s ineligibility for a CADI waiver. REVERSE the agency’s determination as to the effective date of termination of appellant’s CADI waiver. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On October 22, 2019, Health & Human Services (the agency) sent (via a Notice of Action to inform him that he was no longer eligible to receive medical assistance under a CADI waiver as of October 21, 2019. Exhibits 1 and 2 . On November 21, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On December 17, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. After the evidentiary hearing, the agency and appellant submitted additional exhibits. On December 17, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and five exhibits. 2
Date: January 02, 2020
Docket: 229047
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to deny appellant’s request to purchase a new computer using money from her Consumer Directed Community Supports (CDCS) budget. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On October 3, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written “CDCS Review Group Request Results” to inform her that her request for a new computer was denied. On October 11, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On November 14, 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 three exhibits. 2
Date: December 30, 2019
Docket: 227687
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined on July 16, 2019, that appellant committed maltreatment of a minor, , by physical abuse. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s determination as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On July 16, 2019, the agency notified appellant of its determination that she committed maltreatment of a minor child. Exhibit 1 . On July 26, 2019, appellant requested reconsideration of the agency’s determination. Exhibit 2 . The agency reconsidered and reaffirmed its maltreatment determination on August 8, 2019. Exhibit 4 . On September 3, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit 18 . 2. On December 4, 2019, the human services judge held an in-person evidentiary hearing on the matter at the County Government Center. On the same date, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and 23 exhibits. 2
Date: December 30, 2019
Docket: 226497
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Should the Respondent be disqualified from receiving benefits from the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) for one year because the Respondent committed an intentional program violation? PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On October 9, 2019, County (Agency) filed a request for an administrative disqualification hearing with the Appeals Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (Appeals Division) regarding an alleged intentional program violation by (Respondent). 1 In the request, the Agency asked that the Respondent be disqualified from the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) for one year. 2 2. On October 17, 2019, the Appeals Division sent written notice to the Respondent by first class mail that a hearing on the Agency’s allegations was set for December 2, 2019. Along with the hearing notice, the Appeals Division sent the Respondent copies of all information it had received from the Agency related to the allegations, along with information about the hearing process. The information was not returned by the postal service. Respondent confirmed receipt of the notice and documents at the hearing. 3. On December 2, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On December 2, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and eleven exhibits. 3
Date: December 27, 2019
Docket: 202275
Examiner: Kalli Bennett
The issue(s) raised in this appeal is: Whether the Department of Human Services correctly denied the Appellant’s Prior Authorization request for orthodontic services. Recommended Decision: The Human Services Judge recommends the Commissioner of Human Services AFFIRM the Department of Human Services’s denial of the Appellant’s Prior Authorization request for orthodontic services. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On August 5, 2019, the Department of Human Services (Agency) sent (Appellant) a notice that her Prior Authorization request had been denied. Exhibit 2 . 2. On September 11, 2019, the Appellant filed this appeal. Exhibit 1 . 3. A hearing was scheduled for October 9, 2019. However, Appellant had not received the Agency’s Appeal Summary. The hearing was then continued to allow the Appellant to receive and review the Appeal Summary. 4. On October 28, 2019, Human Services Judge John Sadowski held an evidentiary hearing via telephone conference. Judge Sadowski accepted two exhibits and testimony into evidence. 2
Date: December 24, 2019
Docket: 226702
Examiner: John W. Sadowski
The issue(s) raised in this appeal is/are: Whether the agency was correct when it terminated the appellant’s Medical Assistance effective December 1, 2019 because of the appellant’s failure to complete the renewal process. Recommended Decision: The agency was correct to terminate the appellant’s Medical Assistance coverage effective December 1, 2019. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. The agency sent the appellant written notice dated November 8, 2019 terminating the appellant’s Medical Assistance coverage as of December 1, 2019. Exhibit 2, Attachment B. The appellant filed an appeal with the state agency appeals office on November 16, 2019. Exhibit 1. The Human Services Judge held a telephone hearing on December 19, 2019. The Judge accepted two exhibits 2 into evidence and closed the record at the end of the hearing.
Date: December 20, 2019
Docket: 228950
Examiner: Louis Thayer
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency’s determination that appellant received an overpayment of Minnesota Family Investment Program benefits in the amount of $1,260.00 was proper. Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services affirm the agency’s determination that appellant received an overpayment of Minnesota Family Investment Program benefits but reverse the amount of $1,260.00 and instead order that appellant repay the amount of $840.00. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On October 1, 2019, County (agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that he received an overpayment of Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) benefits of $1,260.00. Exhibit 1. On October 8, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A. 2. On October 31, 2019, the Human Services Judge held an in-person evidentiary hearing on the matter at the County Health Services building at , Minnesota. The record, consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits, 2 closed at the conclusion of the hearing.
Date: December 20, 2019
Docket: 300185
Examiner: Anna I. Cortez
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to terminate appellant’s medical assistance coverage effective on November 1, 2019, based on nonrenewal. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On October 9, 2019, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a Health Care Closing Notice to inform her that her medical assistance coverage would stop effective on November 1, 2019. Exhibit 1, Attachment B . On October 21, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On November 20, 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: December 19, 2019
Docket: 228009
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
5. On October 9, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone. Following the hearing, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 2
Date: December 18, 2019
Docket: 226347
Examiner: John W. Sadowski
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