IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Becirovic, : : No. 589 C.D. 2016 Petitioner : Submitted: August 12, 2016

:

v. :

: Department of Human Services, :

: Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: December 28, 2016

David Becirovic (Petitioner) petitions pro se for review of the March

21, 2016 final administrative action order of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals

(BHA) affirming the March 15, 2016 order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

,
which dismiss ed in part and deni ed in part Petitioner’s appeal of a decision of the

Cumberland County Assistance Office (CAO)

. 1 More specifically, the ALJ denied

Petitioner’s appeal of the September 3, 2015 notice establis h ing th at he qualified

for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits of $16.00 per

month and dismiss ed his appeal from a June 25, 2015 SNAP n otice of ineligibility

as moot.

1 This Court’s order dated June 27, 2016 precluded DHS from filing a brief for failure to comply with a prior order directing it to do so by June 20, 2016.2 On June 25, 2015, CAO mailed Petitioner a d enial n otice indicating

that he was ineligible for SNAP benefits because his income exceeded the

program’s eligibility limits. On July 2, 2015, Petitioner filed a timely appeal

.

D uring an August 5, 2015 hearing, Petitioner entered into a stipulation and

settlement agreement in which CAO agreed to reassess Petitioner’s benefit

eligibility upon receipt of verification of his out

- of

- pocket medical expenses and

loans. In a notice dated September 3, 2015, the CAO determined that Petitioner

was eligible for SNAP benefits in the amount of $16.00 per month from August

2015 forward

. In September 2015, Petitioner filed a request with the BHA to

enforce the August 5, 2015 stipulation.

The parties entered into another stipulation on October 19, 2015,

whereby CAO agreed to reassess Petitioner’s eligibility from the date of his

application

. CAO issued a notice on November 3, 2015, informing Petitioner that

he was eligible for SNAP benefits for the months of June and July 2015 in the

amount of $16.00 per month. Petitioner filed a request to enforce that stipulation

with the BHA.

Petition er appealed the June 25, 2015 and September 3, 2015

decisions of the CAO , alleging in part that the CAO was discriminating against

him on the basis of his disability. An ALJ held a second hearing on February 18,

2016.

In a decision and o rder dated Marc h 15, 2016, the ALJ dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal of the June 25, 2015 be nefit ineligibility notice as moot and

denied Petitioner’s appeal of the September 3, 2015 notice that he was eligible for

SNAP benefits of $16.00 per month

. The ALJ’s adjudication r ecognized that the

CAO erred in calculating Petitioner’s shelter expenses but explained that this error3

did not affect Petitioner’s benefit rate. The ALJ’s decision also stat ed that she was

without jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s allegations of discrimination.

Petitioner appealed to the BHA, which issued a final administrative action order,

dated March 21, 2016, affirming the ALJ’s decision. Petitioner now appeals to this

Court. 2

Initially

, we note that Petitioner’s brief contains substantial defects

that impede the Court’s ability to address the arguments he presents on appeal. See

Pa.R.A.P. Nos. 2115 (requiring that the text of the order appealed from be set forth

ve rbatim); 2116 (no question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement

of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby); 2117 (the statement of the

case shall contain a closely condensed chronological statement of all the facts that

are ne cessary to determine the points in controversy); and 2119 (requiring citations

of authorities, references to the record, and a synopsis of the evidence). A lthough

Petitioner appeals from the BHA’s March 21, 2016 order, 3 he quotes the lang uage

of the June 25, 2015 SNAP n otice of ineligibility in the “Order in Question”

section of his brief. Petitioner’s brief at 4. In the Statement of Questions Involved,

Petitioner’s brief at 6, he asks whether the BHA erred (1) in finding insufficient

evidence of his dis ability status and (2) in concluding that he is ineligible for

benefits under applicable regulations. However, the record reflects that

Petitioner’s status as disabled was recognized, and the BHA’s March 21, 2016

2 O ur review of the BHA’s final order 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 Services, Inc. v. Departmen t of Public Welfare

, 803 A.2d 260 , 263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

3 Petitioner’s Petition for Review identifies the March 21, 2016 order as the decision he appeals from.4

order appealed from affirms a determinatio n that Petitioner is, in fact, eligible for

SNAP benefits in the amount of $16.00 per month.

In the two

- page argument portion of his brief, Petitioner sets forth

information related to the amounts and sources of his income and mortgage loans,

the calcul ations h e believes should be used to compute his eligibility for SNAP

benefits, and unsupported assertions that the actions of the agency constitute

evidence of ongoing discrimination. In conclusion, Petitioner asks this Court to

hold that DHS erred in fi nding that he is ineligible for SNAP benefits.

In light of the foregoing, w e conclude that the material deficiencies in

Petitioner’s brief p reclude us from granting any relief and require us to quash the

appeal

. See Barber v. Tax Review Board , 850 A.2d 866, 867

- 68 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2004) (quashing the appeal where the questions presented were vague, and the

appellant’s argument was a mere recitation of the facts and failed to analyze the

questions within the context of the law); Lucarelli v. Workmen’s Compen sation

A p peal Board (Emerson Electric) , 546 A.2d 151 , 152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)

(quashing the appeal because substantial defects in the appellant’s brief impaired

the court’s ability to conduct meaningful appellate review). 4

Accordingly, we quash the appeal

.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

4 See also

, Robinson v. Schallenberg , 729 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) stating that,
whi le the Court is “generally inclined to construe pro se materials liberally,” we “decline to become [the appellant’s] counsel.” Nevertheless, we observe that the ALJ’s comprehensive opinion sets forth the relevant facts, procedural history, applicable regu lations, and calculations that support her determination.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David Becirovic, : : No. 589 C.D. 2016 Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Department of Human Services, :

: Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28 th day of December , 2016, the above

- captioned

appeal is quash ed.

__________________________________ MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge