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
Date: May 20, 2020
Docket: 202341
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether respondent should be disqualified from receiving benefits from the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) for one year because she committed intentional program violation(s) (IPV). Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision to disqualify respondent from MFIP, SNAP, and CCAP programs for one year for IPV. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On March 2, 2020, County (the agency) filed a request for an administrative disqualification hearing (ADH) with the Appeals Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (Appeals Division) regarding alleged IPV by (respondent). In the request, the agency asked that respondent be disqualified from the MFIP, SNAP, and CCAP for one year because she committed IPV. Exhibit 1 . 2. On March 4, 2020, the Appeals Division sent written notice to respondent by first class mail that a hearing on the agency’s allegations was set for April 8, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. Along with the hearing notice, the Appeals Division sent 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. 3. On April 8, 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 one exhibit. 1
Date: April 27, 2020
Docket: 233346
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to disenroll appellant and his two children from medical assistance effective on March 1, 2020, based on a failure to renew the coverage. Recommended Decision: DISMISS this appeal as moot. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On February 6, 2020, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a written Health Care Closing Notice to inform him that medical assistance coverage for appellant and his two children would be ending effective on March 1, 2020, based on a failure to submit a complete renewal. Exhibit 1, Attachment A . On February 14, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On February 14, 2020, the Appeals Division scheduled an expedited appeal hearing for February 24, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., and sent the appellant and the agency a Notice of Telephone Hearing. On the same day, appellant requested the appeal hearing to be continued to sometime during the week of March 16-20, 2020. Appellant confirmed his request for a continuance in a letter to the Appeals Division dated February 18, 2020. 3. On February 20, 2020, the Appeals Division scheduled an appeal hearing for March 16, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., and sent appellant and the agency a Notice of Telephone Hearing. 4. On March 16, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open following the hearing to obtain additional information from the agency in response to appellant’s testimony. The agency responded on March 16, 2020, and the record was closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and six exhibits. 2
Date: April 16, 2020
Docket: 232648
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant’s SNAP allotment should be reduced from $49 per month to $16 per month effective on October 1, 2019, based on changes to appellant’s income and household size. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On September 19, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a Notice of Decision to inform her that her SNAP allotment would be reduced from $49 per month to $16 per month following the addition of to her SNAP household. Shortly after that date, appellant orally notified the agency that she wished to appeal. 2. On February 14, 2020, the Appeals Division sent appellant and the agency a Notice of Telephone Hearing to be held on March 9, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. An agency representative was not available for the hearing, and it was continued to March 16, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. 3. On March 16, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. After the hearing, the record was left open for the agency to submit copies of two SNAP Notices of Decision that had were discussed during the hearing. The additional items were submitted and the record was closed on March 20, 2020, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: April 09, 2020
Docket: 232653
The issues raised in this appeal are: Whether this appeal is timely such as to give the Commissioner jurisdiction to hear the matter, and if so; Whether the agency was correct when it started her MinnesotaCare coverage effective February 1, 2020 because she did not submit a premium payment until January 13, 2020. Recommended Decision: There is good cause for the delay of Appellant filing the appeal more than 30 but less than 90 days from the Agency’s notice of action; The agency’s determination of the start date for MinnesotaCare coverage on February 1, 2020 was correct. The Commissioner should affirm the agency’s determination of the start date. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. The agency sent the appellant a Health Care Notice dated December 5, 2019 stating the appellant is no longer qualified for Medical Assistance effective December 31, 2019 but that she was approved for MinnesotaCare. Exhibit 2, Attachment B. The appellant filed an appeal on February 12, 2020. Exhibit 1. The human services judge held a telephone hearing on March 19, 2020. The human services judge closed the record on that date following the hearing. The record contains two exhibits. 2
Date: April 07, 2020
Docket: 232652
Examiner: Louis Thayer
Date: April 07, 2020
Docket: 232326
Examiner: Louis Thayer
The issue raised in this appeal is: Did the appellant file the appeal in time to give the Commissioner of Human Services authority to hear the matter? Recommended Decision: No. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On March 27, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference call. 2. The record was held open to allow appellant time to submit a copy of her completed renewal form that she testified was submitted to the Department of Human Services (the agency). Because the appeal was expedited in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 256.0451, subdivision 6, and because the completed renewal form was not necessary to reach this decision, however, the record was closed without receiving it. 3. Following the hearing, a response was obtained from the agency to a portion of appellant’s testimony (see below). Exhibit 2 . The record was then closed, consisting of hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: March 31, 2020
Docket: 233865
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly decided to deny appellant’s request to start her MinnesotaCare coverage on March 1, 2020. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On February 27, 2020, the Department of Human Services (the agency) sent (appellant) a written Health Care Notice and a First Premium Notice. The notices said that appellant that was approved to enroll in MinnesotaCare effective on February 1, 2020, but coverage would not begin until the first day of the month after she made her first premium payment. Exhibit 1, Attachments C and D . Appellant did not make a premium payment at that time, and coverage did not begin on March 1, 2020. On March 3, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On March 13, 2020, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open following the hearing to obtain additional information from appellant and the agency about appellant’s communication with the agency on February 26 and 27, 2020, and about appellant’s first premium payment. On March 19, 2020, the record closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 2
Date: March 23, 2020
Docket: 233434
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant should have been ineligible for assistance penalty period for 4.44 months, from December 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, with a partial penalty of $3,502.40 for April 2020, because of appellant’s uncompensated transfers totaling $35,353.50. Recommended Decision: REVERSE the agency’s determination and instead impose an uncompensated transfers penalty period lasting 2.17 months, from December 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020, with a partial penalty of $1,353.20 for February 2020. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On January 16, 2020, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action denying her request for long-term care medical assistance (LTC-MA) effective on August 1, 2019. 2 Exhibit 1 . On January 21, 2020, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2. On February 25, 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 five exhibits. 3
Date: March 17, 2020
Docket: 231723
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
appellant expressed good cause for missing the pre-hearing conference and requested that the matter be reopened. Appellant’s Exhibit C. The request to re-open the matter was granted. Appellant’s Exhibit D. The human services judge conducted a prehearing conference with the parties on February 4, 2020 to set the matter on for hearing on the merits and to clarify that the appeal was for both the county agency’s determination of maltreatment and the state agency’s disqualification. 4. On March 9, 2020, human services judge conducted a fair hearing on both actions. The hearing was conducted by video conference with the judge and state agency representatives at the state agency location in St. Paul, Minnesota and the appellant and the county agency’s representatives at the County location. The judge accepted a total of 20 exhibits: ten from the county, six from the state agency and four from the appellant into evidence. 2 The judge closed the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
Date: March 17, 2020
Docket: 226255
Examiner: LOUIS THAYER
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