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 1707
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that April 1, 2019, was the starting date of appellant’s MinnesotaCare coverage. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM the agency’s decision as correct. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On February 22, 2019, the Department of Human services (the agency) and MNsure jointly sent a written notice to inform appellant that she and her husband were eligible for MinnesotaCare coverage on the first day of the month following the month in which they paid an initial premium. The agency received appellant’s initial premium payment on March 6, 2019, and coverage started on April 1, 2019. Exhibit 1, Attachments B and C . April 23, 2019, appellant filed an appeal about the correct starting date of coverage. 2. On May 20, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On June 12, 2019, DHS submitted a summary addendum to address the issue of the time it took for the agency DHS to process appellant’s income change information and redetermine her eligibility, and to submit a copy of a Health Care Notice dated December 20, 2018. Appellant was provided with an opportunity to respond to the agency, but did not do so. The record closed on June 19, 2019, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: July 12, 2019
Docket: 202220
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency’s termination of appellant’s Medical Assistance and Qualified Medicare Beneficiary benefits effective April 30, 2019 was proper. Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services dismiss this appeal as moot. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 16, 2019, County (agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that her Medical Assistance (MA) and Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) benefits were closing effective April 30, 2019. Exhibit 1. On May 17, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A. 2. On June 13, 2019, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits, 2 closed at the conclusion of the hearing.
Date: July 05, 2019
Docket: 223016
Examiner: Anna I. Cortez
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency correctly determined that appellant was not eligible for a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotment. Recommended Decision: REVERSE the agency and determine that appellant is eligible for a SNAP allotment of $18 per month. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 4, 2019, County (the agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that she was not eligible for SNAP for May 2019. Exhibit 1, pages 4-6 . On April 17, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A . 2 On May 22, 2019, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. 2. Minnesota Statutes, section 256.0451, subdivision 21, provides that “when necessary, the record shall remain open to permit a person to submit additional evidence on the issues presented at the hearing.” The record was held open following the hearing for appellant to submit copies of her judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage, an order temporary child support, bank statements, and information about appellant’s medical expenses. Appellant submitted these items on June 5, 2019, and the record was closed, consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 3
Date: July 05, 2019
Docket: 202217
Examiner: KEVIN T. SLATOR
Date: July 02, 2019
Docket: 202147
Examiner: Linda C. Barbe
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency’s determination that appellant did not qualify for Medical Assistance was proper. Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services affirm the agency’s determination that appellant did not qualify for Medical Assistance. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 19, 2019, the Department of Human Services, Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) (agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that she does not qualify for Medical Assistance but was approved for MinnesotaCare effective April 1, 2019. Exhibit 1. On May 6, 2019, filed an appeal on behalf of appellant. Exhibit A. 2. On May 20, 2019, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open through June 25, 2019 for Mr. to submit documentation regarding appellant’s RSDI income, Medicare premium amount and supplemental health insurance premium amount, as well as the agency’s response to questions from the Human Services Judge. The agency response was received on June 21, 2019. On June 21, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 2
Date: July 01, 2019
Docket: 222522
Examiner: Anna I. Cortez
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether appellant’s appeal was timely and the Commissioner of Human Services has jurisdiction. Recommended Decision: DISMISS appellant’s appeal because it was untimely and the commissioner does not have jurisdiction. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On December 19, 2018, the agency sent appellant an “Overpayment Notice” to inform her that she had been overpaid a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) allotment in the amount of $1,828 between March 2018 and June 2018. On April 2, 2019, appellant filed an appeal. 2. On April 24, 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: June 25, 2019
Docket: 202212
Examiner: Kevin T. Slator
representative. Ms. and appellant's son, testified on appellant's behalf. The agency was represented by RN, PHN and RN, PHN. During the hearing, the human services judge admitted ten exhibits into the record. 7 7. At the conclusion of the March 28, 2019 hearing and at the request of Ms. the human services judge left the record open until April 12, 2019 to allow appellant to submit a PCA assessment from earlier in 2019. 8. April 4, 2019, the human services judge received the following correspondence and documents from appellant that the judge admitted into the record: a. Letter to human services judge from admitted as exhibit B b. January 5, 2018 MA Home Care Service Agreement, admitted as exhibit C c. February 1, 2019 MA Home Care Service Agreement, admitted as exhibit D d. PCA Assessment and Service Plan for assessment on January 3, 2019, admitted as exhibit E 9. After receiving the additional information from the appellant, the human services judge sent a copy of the information to the agency. In an April 10, 2019 letter to Ms. and Ms. the human services judge informed the parties she was leaving the record open until April 26, 2019 to allow the agency to respond to the information Ms. submitted after the hearing. If the agency chose to respond, the appellant would have until May 10, 2019 to respond to the agency's response. 10. In a letter to the appellant and human services judge dated April 16, 2019, the agency responded to the additional information from the appellant. The human services judge admitted the letter into the record as exhibit 10. 11. The record closed May 10, 2019 without the appellant responding to the agency's April 16, 2019 letter. The record consists of the testimony at the March 28, 2019 hearing and fifteen exhibits.
Date: June 20, 2019
Docket: 202192
Examiner: Linda C. Barbe
County, instead of to MinnesotaCare Operations. Exhibit 1. 6. On February 4, 2019, the Agency processed the renewal and determined that the Appellant and his spouse were ineligible for Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare due to being over the income limit for both programs. Exhibit 1. Adding the spouse’s wages and her rental income, the Agency determined that the household projected annual income was $66,174.00. Exhibit 1. 7. On March 27, 2019, the Appellant requested a state fair hearing. Exhibit 3. 8. On May 20, 2019 and June 3, 2019, Human Services Judge Christopher Cimafranca held an evidentiary hearing by telephone conference. The record closed at the conclusion of the hearing on June 3, 2019, consisting of three exhibits (State Agency Appeal Summary and attachments, Exhibit 1; Fax from the Appellant on May 20, 2019 and June 3, 2019 and April 12, 2019, Exhibit 2; Appeal Request, Exhibit 3).
Date: June 18, 2019
Docket: 202210
Examiner: Christopher Cimafranca
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency’s determination to reduce appellant’s Personal Care Assistance service hours from 3 hours per day to 0.5 hours per day was proper. Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services reverse the agency’s determination that the appellant was eligible for 0.5 hours (30 minutes, 2 units) of daily PCA services and instead determine the appellant is eligible for 2.25 hours (135 minutes, 9 units) of daily PCA services. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On March 15, 2019, County (Agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that his Personal Care Assistance (PCA) service hours were being reduced from 3 hours per day to 0.5 hours per day. Exhibit 1. On March 21, 2019, (appellant’s representative) filed an appeal on behalf of the appellant. Exhibit A. Prior hearings scheduled on April 16, April 30 and May 16, 2019 were continued for various reasons. 2. On June 3, 2019, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record, consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits, 2 closed at the conclusion of the hearing.
Date: June 18, 2019
Docket: 202208
Examiner: Anna I. Cortez
The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the agency’s determination that effective July 1, 2019 was proper. ’s MinnesotaCare is Recommended Decision: I recommend that the Commissioner of Human Services affirm the agency’s determination that ’s MinnesotaCare is effective July 1, 2019. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On June 4, 2019, the Department of Human Services, Minnesota Health Care Programs (MHCP) (agency) sent (appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that the MinnesotaCare for himself and was approved effective June 1, 2019 and that coverage starts on the first day of the month after the first premium payment. Exhibit 1. On June 3, 2019, the appellant filed an appeal. Exhibit A. 2. On June 13, 2019, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The record was held open through June 18, 2019 for the agency to respond to an inquiry from the Human Services Judge. The agency responded to the inquiry on June 13, 2019. On June 14, 2019, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and three exhibits. 2
Date: June 18, 2019
Docket: 202234
Examiner: Anna I. Cortez
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