IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Steven Burda, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 162 C.D. 2018

: Submitted: April 5, 2019

Department of Human Services, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge1

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE SIMPSON FILED: December 17, 2019

After repeated appeals and prior adjudications in this prolonged human 

services case, Steven Burda (Applicant), representing himself, petitions for review 

of a final order of the Department of Human Services (Department), Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals (BHA). Therein, the BHA affirmed an Administrative Law 

Judge’s (ALJ) order denying his appeals from two Montgomery County Assistance 

Office (CAO) decisions. Specifically, Applicant appealed the CAO notices 

discontinuing both Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits2for 

Applicant and his family,3 and Medical Assistance (MA) benefits for Applicant, his 

wife, A.B. (Wife), and his daughter, C.B. (Daughter), when their household income 

exceeded eligibility limits. Discerning no error below, we affirm.

 

1 This matter was assigned to this panel before September 1, 2019, when Judge Simpson 

assumed the status of senior judge.

2 SNAP benefits were formerly known as “Food Stamps.” 7 U.S.C. §§2011-2036c.

3 Applicant’s five-person household includes infant twins, I.B. and Z.B., who continue to 

receive Medical Assistance (MA) benefits. The twins’ benefits are not at issue in this appeal.
2

I. Background

Applicant, Wife, Daughter, and infant twins, (collectively, Family) 

comprising a five-person household, are recipients of SNAP benefits. Applicant, 

Wife, and Daughter are recipients of MA benefits, specifically, Modified Adjusted 

Gross Income (MAGI) MA benefits. Based on their household income as shown by 

automated sources,

4

the CAO discontinued Family’s SNAP benefits, and 

Applicant’s, Wife’s, and Daughter’s MA benefits in October 2015. At a telephonic 

hearing, the parties entered a stipulation of settlement in which Applicant agreed to 

submit copies of Wife’s November 2015 pay stubs and verification that his 

unemployment compensation (UC) benefits ended. The Department agreed that it 

would re-determine SNAP and MA eligibility for Applicant’s household based on his 

submissions and issue a new notice, from which Applicant could appeal. 

Upon receipt of the requested documents, the CAO issued a new notice 

in December 2015, indicating Family no longer qualified for SNAP benefits because 

its household income exceeded eligibility limits (SNAP Notice). In January 2016, 

the CAO issued a notice advising that Applicant, Wife, and Daughter no longer 

qualified for MA benefits for the same reason, i.e., household income exceeded 

program eligibility limits (MA Notice). The discontinuance of these benefits in the 

SNAP Notice and MA Notice (collectively, Notices), which Applicant timely 

appealed, remains at issue to date.

5

 

4 Automated sources include, among others, state agencies’ income and eligibility 

verification systems, which can be used to verify wage and benefit information, such as the receipt 

of UC benefits. 7 C.F.R. §§272.8, 273.2(f)(4)(iv).

5 The CAO continued SNAP benefits for Applicant’s household, and continued MA 

benefits for Applicant, Wife, and Daughter during the pendency of these long-standing appeals.
3

The CAO used Family’s December 2015 income to calculate SNAP 

eligibility and Family’s January 2016 income to calculate MA eligibility. See

Debkowski v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 291 A.2d 821 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (benefit 

eligibility is calculated using applicant’s income for the month concerned).

A. First Adjudication

The ALJ held a second telephonic hearing as to Applicant’s appeal of 

the Notices in March 2016. Applicant testified, through a Russian interpreter, on 

Family’s behalf. He claimed he did not receive the Department’s exhibits and that 

the CAO failed to consider many of his expenses in calculating Family’s benefits. 

The ALJ kept the record open, extending the deadline to March 31, 2016, for 

Applicant to submit the following evidence: medical expenses; housing bills; other 

expenses; support obligations; Wife’s income from January 1 to present (i.e., March 

2016); and a response to the Department’s exhibits. 

Applicant submitted some, but not all, of the documentation requested 

by the ALJ. Based on the submissions and the hearing, the ALJ denied the appeals 

in April 2016, determining Family’s income exceeded both the SNAP and MA 

programs’ eligibility limits. In this first adjudication, the ALJ also determined 

Family’s income was too high for the Medically Needy Only (MNO) MA category. 

Thus, the ALJ affirmed the CAO’s decisions to discontinue Family’s SNAP benefits 

and found Applicant, Wife and Daughter ineligible for MAGI-MA benefits. 

Applicant appealed to the BHA, which also affirmed. He then sought reconsideration 

of the BHA’s order from the Secretary, which the Secretary denied. 
4

Applicant then appealed to this Court. See Burda v. Dep’t of Human 

Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 917 C.D. 2016). Acknowledging Applicant stated he did 

not receive the Department’s exhibits, and so he could not use them at the hearing, 

the Department requested a remand. This Court granted the Department’s request,

remanding for the purposes of holding a new hearing and issuing a new adjudication. 

B. Remand Proceedings & Second Adjudication 

On remand, the same ALJ held a third telephonic hearing in July 2017. 

Applicant again testified with the help of a Russian interpreter. An income 

maintenance supervisor and caseworker testified on the Department’s behalf. 

Applicant claimed again that he did not receive the Department’s exhibits, which 

were the same as those submitted at the prior hearing. He expressed concern with 

the calculation of both the SNAP and MA benefits and stated Wife’s income was 

calculated incorrectly. He asserted the regulations were misapplied in that a number 

of his expenses, including those related to medical care, moving, remodeling, 

daycare, and child support, were not taken into consideration. Applicant further 

claimed he sent records supporting his expenses, as the ALJ permitted, including 

verifications of medical expenses, Wife’s income, and other expenses, which were 

not considered.6 See Suppl. Certified Record, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/24/17, 

at 14, 21, 23-31. He emphasized all expenses should be counted in the calculations. 

An income maintenance supervisor testified Family’s SNAP benefits 

were discontinued (SNAP Notice) in December 2015 based on the monthly income 

 

6 Upon Applicant’s request, the ALJ directed the Department’s witnesses to explain the 

Department’s reasons for discontinuing Family’s SNAP benefits and Applicant’s, Wife’s, and 

Daughter’s MA benefits. See Suppl. Certified Record, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/24/17, at 35-

39. 
5

of Wife, who had gross earnings as follows: $3,834 (November 2015); $7,222, 

including a $2,000 bonus (December 2015); and $3,840 (January 2016).7 

Additionally, Applicant’s UC benefits of $2,284 in January 2016 counted as income. 

However, Wife’s income alone exceeded the SNAP eligibility threshold, which was

160% of the federal poverty level limit. Id. at 37, 39-41. 

An income maintenance caseworker testified Applicant’s, Wife’s, and 

Daughter’s MA benefits were discontinued (MA Notice) because Family’s 

combined household income, even with applied deductions totaling $534 ($34 for 

health savings accounts and $500 for alimony), exceeded the MAGI-MA 133% 

federal poverty level limit. Family was also ineligible under the MNO-MA category. 

See N.T., 7/24/17, at 53-59. 

Based on Applicant’s testimony at the July 2017 remand hearing, the 

ALJ directed Applicant to submit the following records as evidence, pre-designated

as exhibits A-1 through A-8: (A-1) response to the Department’s exhibits; (A-2) 

moving expenses; (A-3) unpaid medical bills; (A-4) amount of support and alimony 

in 2015-2016; (A-5) childcare costs in 2015-2016; (A-6) remodeling expenses; (A-7) 

credit card expenses; and (A-8) health savings account deductions in 2015-2016. The 

ALJ indicated that evidence from the prior hearings in 2016 would not be considered 

unless resubmitted. 

 

7 Where a recipient’s income was recurring, but not uniform from month to month, a

caseworker was justified to calculate benefit eligibility in terms of the actual amount received or

to calculate an estimated monthly figure based on available information. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. 

Lesser, 354 A.2d 17, 18 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (noting “of necessity, the payments forthcoming in 

any month are estimated from income and deductions for the previous month”). 
6

Although Applicant requested and received an extension until 

September 29, 2017, he did not submit records corresponding to the pre-designated 

exhibits A-1 through A-8 by the extended deadline. Thus, the record closed, again, 

without receipt of the pertinent evidence. The ALJ denied Applicant’s post-remand 

appeals in October 2017, on the same grounds as in the first adjudication, i.e., income 

in excess of the programs’ eligibility limits. Applicant appealed the second 

adjudication, and the BHA again affirmed.

C. Secretary’s Remand & Third Adjudication

Applicant sought reconsideration of the BHA’s order, which the 

Secretary granted, remanding the appeals to the BHA. The Secretary directed the 

BHA to reopen the record on remand for the purpose of giving Applicant another 

opportunity to submit the pre-designated exhibits by December 7, 2017, to hold a 

new hearing if necessary, and to issue a new adjudication based on the remand 

proceedings. On remand, the BHA notified Applicant that no new hearing would 

be held,

8 and it reiterated the requirements for submitting evidence corresponding to 

pre-designated exhibits A-1 through A-8. According to the ALJ, Applicant

submitted extensive documentation on December 7, 2017; however, the ALJ did not 

receive this documentation for several weeks following the deadline. Despite 

receiving the documentation late, the ALJ nevertheless considered all of Applicant’s

submissions. Thereafter, the ALJ closed the record.9 

 

8 Based on our careful review, this notice does not appear in the certified record. 

9 Around the same time, the Department received notice that Applicant sought review of

the BHA’s order affirming the second adjudication in this Court. See Burda v. Dep’t of Human 

Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1675 C.D. 2017). However, this Court dismissed Applicant’s appeal,

thus releasing the matter to the BHA’s jurisdiction.
7

Ultimately, in January 2018, the ALJ denied Applicant’s appeals for 

the adjudication now before us on appeal (Third Adjudication). At the outset, the 

ALJ noted the deficiencies in Applicant’s submissions, such as documents that were 

illegible, irrelevant, or lacked the required verifications. She explained the 

documents he submitted were not offered or were not pre-designated as exhibits at 

the hearing. 

First, the ALJ calculated Family’s eligibility for SNAP benefits. She 

observed that Wife’s income of $3,840 in January 2016, when added to Applicant’s 

UC benefits of $2,284 that month, yielded a gross household income of $6,124. 

Where a household does not contain an elderly or disabled individual, the 160% 

federal poverty income limit for determining categorical eligibility applies. See

Chapter 568 of the Department’s SNAP Handbook (SNAP Handbook),

10 App. A 

(Income Limits); see also 7 C.F.R. §273.9 (“[h]ouseholds which do not contain an

elderly or disabled member shall meet both the net income eligibility standards and 

the gross income eligibility standards for SNAP”).11 For a five-person household, 

the 160% net income limit was $3,789 beginning October 1, 2015. See Chapter 568 

of the SNAP Handbook. The ALJ also explained households that cannot establish 

categorical eligibility for SNAP using the 160% net income limit must pass the 

130% gross income test. For a five-person household, the 130% gross income limit 

was $3,078 when the CAO issued the SNAP Notice. Id. 

 

10 The SNAP Handbook can be found at the following web address: http://

services.dpw.state.pa.us/oimpolicymanuals/snap/SNAP_Handbook.htm (last visited Sept. 24, 

2019). 

11 Gross income is defined as a household’s total, non-excluded income before any 

deductions. Net income is defined as gross income minus allowable deductions. The United States 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service’s definitions for gross and net income can 

be found at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility (last visited Sept. 24, 2019).
8

Because Wife’s gross income of $3,840 in January 2016 exceeded the 

SNAP income limit by $800, as did her $7,222 income in December 2015, Family 

was ineligible for deductible expenses. Further, taking into account Applicant’s UC 

benefits, Family’s income for January 2016 exceeded the net income limit by $2,300, 

and the gross income limit by more than $3,000. Additionally, Family was not 

eligible for any deductions.12

Next, the ALJ calculated Applicant’s, Wife’s, and Daughter’s 

eligibility for MAGI-MA benefits. For a five-person household, the MAGI-MA 

income limit was $3,149 per month, or 133% of the federal poverty income limit, 

beginning on January 22, 2015, and ending on January 25, 2016, when the income 

limit increased to $3,153. See 42 C.F.R. §435.911(b)(1); Section 312 of the 

Department’s MA Eligibility Handbook (MA Handbook).

13

 However, the ALJ 

noted the 5% disregard was only available to applicants who qualified for benefits 

after its application. ALJ Adj., 2/2/2018, at 36. The program permits a 5% disregard 

to afford benefits to households within 5% of the income limits. Here, as it would 

not impact Applicant’s, Wife’s, or Daughter’s eligibility for MA benefits, the ALJ 

did not apply the 5% disregard. 

 

12 The ALJ correctly applied the income eligibility limits for the month SNAP benefits 

were discontinued (December 2015). However, she considered Family’s income in both 

December 2015 and January 2016. This is consistent with Section 568.2 of the SNAP Handbook 

which requires a calculation of benefit eligibility to consider the applicant’s income “for the month 

of application and the following month.” Chapter 568.2 of the Department’s SNAP Handbook 

(SNAP Handbook) (emphasis in original). 

13 The MA Handbook can be found at the following web address: 

http://services.dpw.state.pa.us/oimpolicymanuals/ma/index.htm (last visited Sept. 24, 2019). 
9

The ALJ determined that Family’s income for January 2016, comprised 

of Applicant’s $2,284 in UC benefits and Wife’s gross earnings of $3,840, minus 

the permissible deductions ($500 for alimony and $34 for health savings accounts),

totaled $5,590. This exceeded the monthly MAGI-MA income limit of $3,153 by 

more than $2,000. Additionally, the ALJ explained that even when applying the 

157% MAGI-MA income limit for children ages one through five in Daughter’s case

($3,721 in 2016), Family’s countable household income in January 2016 exceeded 

that limit by more than $1,800. See Section 312.13 of the MA Handbook (Children 

Ages 1-5); 42 C.F.R. §435.119. As a result, Daughter was disqualified from 

receiving MA benefits.14

Based on the above calculations, the ALJ concluded Family’s income 

exceeded the eligibility limits under both SNAP and the MA benefit programs. 

Further, Family was not eligible for any additional deductions based on Applicant’s 

submissions. As such, the ALJ denied Applicant’s appeals. Applicant appealed the 

Third Adjudication to the BHA, which affirmed. Applicant now petitions this Court 

for review of the BHA’s final order.15 

 

14 In addition, the ALJ determined that Applicant’s monthly income before deductions, 

when combined with Wife’s, also exceeded the semi-annual MNO-MA limit of $4,050 for a fiveperson household by over $2,000, and exceeded the monthly MNO-MA income limit of $675 by 

approximately $5,000. As a result, the ALJ found Applicant, Wife, and Daughter were also not 

eligible for MNO-MA. 

15 Applicant also sought reconsideration of this order, which the Secretary denied. As only 

the BHA’s order on the merits is before us, our review is limited to determining whether an error 

of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings 

of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Woods Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 803 

A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In a proceeding to determine eligibility for public assistance 

benefits, the ALJ, as designee for the Secretary of the DHS, is the ultimate factfinder. Olivero v. 

Dep’t of Pub. Welfare (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1360 C.D. 2003, filed Jan. 29, 2004) (unreported). As

the Secretary did not reverse any findings of fact found by the ALJ, the findings, if supported by 

substantial evidence, bind this Court. Woods.
10

II. Discussion

On appeal, Applicant contests the calculation of Family’s SNAP and 

MA benefits. Specifically, he raises a due process challenge based on the ALJ’s

refusal to consider all of the documents he submitted. He characterizes the dispute as 

a “purely mathematical and calculation issue ....” Pet’r’s Br. at 11 (emphasis in 

original). He asks this Court to vacate the BHA’s order and remand the case for 

recalculation of Family’s eligibility for SNAP and MA benefits based on all relevant 

submitted documentation. 

The Department counters that the ALJ did not abuse her discretion or 

commit legal error when she performed her calculations. It maintains the ALJ 

properly denied Applicant’s appeals because his household income exceeded income 

eligibility limits for both programs.16 

A. Abuse of Discretion & Disregard of Evidence

Applicant insists that the ALJ disregarded his submitted 

documentation, which created an incomplete record and led to the ultimate 

miscalculation of SNAP and MA benefits. In failing to consider all available 

documents (e.g., financial statements, qualified expenses, notices, unemployment 

letters, logs and transactions, child support orders, and paystubs), he asserts the ALJ 

abused her discretion. 

 

16 The Department also asserts this Court should dismiss the petition for review based on the 

deficiencies in Applicant’s uncounseled brief. It argues the brief is so defective that it precludes

meaningful appellate review. See Smithley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 8 A.3d 1027 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Despite the defects in Applicant’s brief, we are able to discern and consider his 

arguments. As such, we decline to dismiss the petition for review on this basis. 
11

We disagree. Applicant’s contentions ignore requirements for

verification and allowable expenses.

1. Verification of Submissions

The applicant bears the burden of establishing eligibility and verifying 

income or lack thereof. Timothy v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 427 A.2d 302 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1981). As a condition of eligibility, the applicant is required, to the extent 

that he is able, to provide sufficient information about his circumstances to enable 

the county assistance office to make a determination. 55 Pa. Code §201.1. See Neal 

v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 413 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (applicant’s testimony 

alone is insufficient). The applicant must substantiate the veracity of information by 

presenting documentary evidence. 55 Pa. Code §201.1. 

Documentary evidence is not limited to any specific type, and may 

include wage stubs, requests for employment/earnings information, billing 

statements, benefit award letters, court orders, and correspondence on support 

payments. 7 C.F.R. §273.2(f)(4)(i). Wage and benefit information may also be

received from automated sources.

The “verification” of resources, or lack thereof, is an essential part of 

the process in assessing an applicant’s eligibility for public assistance benefits. 

Murphy v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 947 A.2d 214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). As the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania explained, 

“[f]undamentally, the federal and state governments have an interest in not being 

defrauded for the benefit of the public .... All the substantiation factors are 
12

necessary to achieve that end.” Robinson v. Block (E.D. Pa., No. 84-4229, filed 

Dec. 23, 1987), 1987 WL 30132, at 17 (unreported), overruled on different grounds

by Robinson v. Block, 869 F.2d 202 (3d Cir. 1989). An unsuccessful, but good faith 

attempt to obtain substantiation will not cause ineligibility. Id. However, the 

number of facts which require verification and the form of evidence needed to 

establish those facts is determined on a case-by-case basis and left largely to a 

caseworker’s discretion. Id.

2. Deductible Expenses

Both SNAP and MA regulations permit a number of deductions from a 

household’s countable gross monthly income. As for SNAP, eligible applicants may 

be able to deduct expenses including certain dependent care, shelter/utility, excess 

medical, and child support costs (at the state agency’s option). 7 C.F.R. §§273.9(d), 

273.10(d). As for MAGI-MA, deductible expenses include student loan interest, 

health savings account deduction, educator expenses, certain job-related moving 

expenses, and alimony paid, among other things. See Section 312.5 of the MA 

Handbook. 

Here, the ALJ assisted Applicant by directing him to submit predesignated exhibits, based on his testimony, to establish his burden of proving 

eligibility. Many of these anticipated exhibits related to Applicant’s eligibility for 

deductible expenses under both SNAP and the MA benefit programs. However,

Applicant did not submit documents in all of the pre-designated exhibit categories. 
13

First, Applicant only submitted documentation for five out of the eight

pre-designated exhibits. Despite his testimony regarding his entitlement to 

deductible expenses, Applicant provided no submissions for the following exhibits:

A-1 (response to the Department’s exhibits); A-2 (verification of moving expenses); 

and A-8 (verification of health savings account in 2015 and 2016). ALJ Adj. at 33-

34. Pursuant to MA regulations, an applicant may be eligible to deduct certain jobrelated moving expenses, see Section 312.5 of the MA Handbook; however, without 

any submission regarding these expenses, Applicant did not establish he qualified 

for this deduction. Similarly, Applicant provided no documentation of his health 

savings account, therefore, the ALJ concluded he was not entitled to more than the 

$34.00 health savings account monthly deduction already allowed.

As for the documents he did submit, Applicant was ineligible for most 

deductions, and he did not provide adequate support for others. 

Regarding exhibit A-3, Applicant submitted verification of unpaid 

medical bills through a one-page document which “appeared to be a medical bill but 

was not legible.” ALJ Adj. at 8. Although MA regulations allow deductions for 

certain paid and unpaid medical expenses, the ALJ could not determine the probative 

value of the bill. Moreover, even if the bill had been legible, there was no indication 

that Family incurred thousands of dollars in medical expenses that would have been 

needed to reduce its countable income below the MNO-MA eligibility limit. ALJ

Adj. at 37. 
14

Similarly, while child support is a deductible expense under SNAP 

benefits, and alimony is a deductible expense under MA benefits, Applicant did not 

prove eligibility for either deduction. Regarding exhibit A-4, verification of the 

actual payments of child support and alimony in 2015 and 2016, Applicant provided

the following: Notice of Process to File Exceptions (January 18, 2013); findings of 

the Support Conference Officer for the Montgomery County Court of Common 

Pleas (January 14, 2013); his Divorce Decree (September 14, 2012); a Pennsylvania 

Child Support Eligibility System (PACSES) tax report, and thirteen pages of the 

Pennsylvania Child Support Guideline worksheet based on a May 2010 order. ALJ 

Adj. at 8. None of this documentation substantiated Applicant’s child support or 

alimony payments as a deductible expense under either program. 

The SNAP regulations permit an income deduction for child support 

payments if there is a verified, legal obligation to pay child support, the payment is 

for a non-household member, and the applicant actually tenders support payment. See

Chapter 560.61 of the SNAP Handbook (Child Support Deduction). Here, 

Applicant’s submission of the Pennsylvania Child Support Guideline Worksheets did 

not substantiate proof of paid child support for a non-household member. Id. 

Likewise, Applicant produced no documentation of alimony he paid in 2015 and 

2016. Instead, he submitted a copy of the order page from his 2012 divorce decree. 

Relevant here, the MAGI-MA regulations only allow a deduction for alimony actually

paid by an individual, not for alimony an individual was ordered to pay. See Section 

312.5 of the MA Handbook. As such, there was nothing in the record to support 

increasing the deductions for alimony ($500) that were already allowed.
15

Regarding exhibits A-6, verification of remodeling expenses, and A-7, 

verification of credit card expenses, Applicant submitted two short, self-typed 

statements in an attempt to verify expenses, without any other substantiation. These 

alone were insufficient to substantiate either expense. See Frankenfield v. Dep’t of 

Pub. Welfare, 537 A.2d 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). The ALJ concluded that even if 

Applicant’s self-prepared submissions, alleging remodeling expenses of $6,800, and 

credit card debt of over $25,000, were properly verified, they were not deductible 

under either SNAP or the MA benefit programs.

 

In fact, the only verified documentation Applicant supplied had no 

impact on Family’s SNAP eligibility. For exhibit A-5, verification of child care 

expenses paid for in 2015 and 2016, Applicant submitted documentation of 

Daughter’s child care expenses in 2016.

17

 ALJ Adj. at 33. Although Applicant

substantiated proof of Daughter’s child care, totaling $9,190.00 in 2016, the ALJ 

concluded this expense also could not be deducted from Family’s income. ALJ Adj. 

at 33, 36. 

Because Family’s countable household income exceeded the gross 

income limit, there is no net income computation, and deductions are not triggered.18 

 

17 The ALJ found Applicant’s submission as to exhibit A-5 satisfied requisite verification 

standards. See ALJ Adj. at 33, 36. 

18 Section 568.21 of the SNAP Handbook presents an eight-step process for determining 

eligibility. The sixth step reads: “If gross income is less than or equal to the gross limit, compute 

the net income.” Chapter 568.21 of the SNAP Handbook, (Application, Computing Eligibility)

(emphasis added). However, if the household’s income does not meet the gross income eligibility 

limits, then net income, which is calculated by subtracting deductible expenses from the gross 

income amount, need not be considered. Id. Because Family’s gross income exceeded the gross 

income limit, the Department did not need to calculate Family’s net income (although it did here) 

because Family was not entitled to any deductions. 
16

See Chapter 568.2 of the SNAP Handbook (Application, Computing Eligibility). 

As such, no deductions may be made for shelter costs, utilities, property taxes, or 

any other housing expenses. Id.

3. Summary

In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion or disregard of Applicant’s 

submissions.

19

 That the ALJ did not deem submissions adequate or probative does 

not mean she disregarded them. Indeed, Applicant was afforded every opportunity 

to submit verification, and the ALJ even accepted and reviewed Applicant’s 

untimely submission of documents. Despite the ALJ’s thorough review, none of 

Applicant’s submissions established Family’s eligibility for SNAP benefits or 

Applicant’s, Wife’s, and Daughter’s eligibility for MA benefits. Rather, the issue 

lies in Applicant’s failure to submit any evidence that demonstrates the BHA erred 

in upholding the CAO Notices that discontinued the SNAP and MA benefits. 

 

B. Calculation Error 

Applicant also generally contests the calculation of Family’s household 

income for SNAP and MA benefits, arguing the eligibility determinations resulted 

from a mathematical error. Yet, he fails to point to any specific miscalculation. 

 

19 Additionally, Applicant submitted several documents that were not pre-designated by 

the ALJ as germane to the calculations. Such submissions included irrelevant information, much 

of which was written in Russian or “too blurred to be legible.” ALJ Adj., 2/2/18, at 34. For 

example, Applicant submitted pages of the SNAP and MA Handbooks; information on the cash 

assistance income policy, which was not an issue; hearing-related documents, including parts of 

notices; and miscellaneous documents, like a printer cleaning page. Id. 
17

Participation in a public benefits assistance program is need-based; 

therefore, one of the factors in calculating benefits is the income available to the 

household. See Section 432 of the Human Services Code,20 62 P.S. §432.

Applicant testified Wife did not work consistently in 2015. As a result, 

Wife’s income was less than CAO reported, rendering the BHA’s determination of 

ineligibility inaccurate. However, the applicant’s annual income is not the relevant 

figure, “only the income to which he is entitled for the month concerned.” 

Debkowski, 291 A.2d at 823. The ALJ concluded Applicant’s submission of his UC 

benefits and Wife’s pay stubs for the relevant months, which were “too blurred to 

be legible,” did not contradict the CAO’s determination of ineligibility. ALJ Adj. at 

34. See Baker v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 393 A.2d 1064 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) 

(submission of a third-party letter stating the applicant had received a certain income 

on a particular date failed to substantiate income). 

Thus, the ALJ correctly determined Family’s household income for 

purposes of calculating eligibility was $6,124, i.e., the sum of Wife’s income 

($3,840)

21 and Applicant’s UC benefits ($2,284). Accordingly, the ALJ made the 

following calculations:

 

20 Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. 31, as amended, 62 P.S. §432.

21 Wife’s income in December 2015 ($7,222), without the $2,000 bonus was $5,222. As 

her monthly income was not uniform, in that it was substantially higher in December, the ALJ 

considered the testimony regarding her gross earnings of $3,834 in November 2015, and $3,840 

in January 2016 to determine her monthly income. Lesser.
18

SNAP Benefits 

Computing Eligibility Family

Determine income eligibility limits

Eligibility limits  number of persons in 

household 

Five-person household (Dec. 2015) =

Gross income limit (130%) of $3,078 &

Net income limit (160%) of $3,789

Calculate gross income 

Household income (before deductions) = gross 

income 

$3,840 (Wife’s monthly income) +

$2,284 (Applicant’s UC benefits)

= $6,124 gross income

Calculate net income

Gross income – eligible deductions = net income

$6,124 in gross income -

Deductions (N/A, Family exceeded gross income)

= $6,124 in net income

Compare

Gross income v. gross income limit &

Net income v. net income limit

$6,124 (gross income) exceeds

$3,078 (gross income limit) by $3,000

& $6,124 (net income) exceeds

$3,789 (net income limit) by $2,300

MA Benefits 

Computing Eligibility Family

Determine income eligibility limits

Eligibility limits  number of persons in 

household

Five-person household (Jan. 2016)

= Income limit (133%) of $3,153

Calculate income

Household income – deductions

$6,124 monthly income (household income) -

$534 in deductions 

($500 alimony + $34 health savings account)

= $5,590 net income

Subtract 5% disregard (if eligible)

5% disregard: $118.50

*Only applied if its application would qualify 

applicant for benefits

$5,590 (net income) -

5% disregard not applied

= $5,590

Compare

Income v. income eligibility limit 

$5,590 (income) exceeds

$3,153 (income limit) by over $2,000

Wife’s income alone exceeded the eligibility limits under both the 

SNAP and MA programs. When added to Applicant’s income from UC benefits,

the combined income exceeded each program’s income limits by $2,000 or more. 

Also, Family was not eligible for deductible expenses under either SNAP or MA 
19

regulations, aside from the $500 alimony deduction and $34 health savings account

deduction as applied to MA eligibility. The ALJ’s calculations included these 

deductions, which were also allowed by the Department. 

We recognize that “[i]n any program where income level is a criterion 

of eligibility, there will necessarily be persons in circumstances very close to, but 

not within, the required standard.” McDaniel v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 370 A.2d 

417, 419 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). This presents a case where, given the lines drawn in 

setting standards for low-income households, households like that of Applicant’s,

simply do not fall within the standards for purposes of public assistance benefits. 

Upon review, we discern no calculation error in the BHA’s eligibility 

determinations under SNAP or MA regulations. Rather, Family’s monthly 

household income exceeded the income eligibility limits for each program, 

rendering Family ineligible. 

III. Conclusion

As outlined above, the ALJ properly considered Applicant’s 

submissions when she denied his appeals. Because Applicant’s household income 

exceeded the eligibility limits for both the SNAP and MA programs, the BHA did 

not err in affirming the Third Adjudication. 

Accordingly, we affirm the BHA’s order.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Steven Burda, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 162 C.D. 2018

:

Department of Human Services, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17th day of December 2019, the order of the 

Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, is AFFIRMED.

 

ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge