IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Florence Elizabeth Mason

, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Department of Human Services, : No. 1767 C.D. 2015 Respondent : Submitted: October 14, 2016

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
P ER CURIAM FILED: January 12, 2017

Florence Elizabeth Mason (Mason) petitions this Court , pro se, for

review of the Department of Human Services (DHS)

, Bureau of Hearings and

Appeals’ (BHA) August 7 , 2015 Final Administrative Action Order (Final Order )

dismissing her appe al. The sole issue before the C ourt is whether BHA erred in

dismissing Mason’s appeal. 1 After review, we affirm.

During March 2015, Mason was receiving Temporary Assistance for

N eedy Families ( TANF ) Cash Assistance benefits. On Mar ch 10, 2015, the

Philadelphia County Assistance Office notified Mason that she would no longer be

eligible for TANF benefits effective March 30, 2015 because she failed to sign the

Agreement of Mutual R esponsibility ( AMR )

. 2 On March 16, 2015, Mason filed a n
appeal. On August 5, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a

1 Mason’s Statement of Questions listed in her brief includes 7 paragraphs. The first three paragraphs appear to present issues with regard to the merit s of the case

, and the last four paragraphs appear to request sa n ctions and discipline against DHS for stopping her benefits. See

Mason Br. at 11

- 12. However, since Mason is appealing from the order dismissing her appeal, that is the only issue properly before the Court.

2 Section 125.1 (g) of DHS’ R egulations provides: “ An individual who is required to sign an application for assistance who fails, without good cause, to sign or cooperate in the completion of an AMR is ineligible for cash assistance until the individual completes and signs an application and approved AMR. ” 55 Pa. Code § 125.1(g)

.2

hearing

. Because Mason failed to appear at the hearing , the ALJ dismissed Mason’s

appeal in accordance with Section 275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A) of DHS’ Regulations, 55 Pa.

Code § 275.4(e )(6)(iii)(A). 3 By August 7, 2015 Final O rder, BHA affirmed the

ALJ’s dismiss al of Mason’s appeal

. On August 24, 2015, Mason filed an

Application/Petition for Reconsideration (Reconsideration Petition). Thereafter

,

M ason appealed from BHA’s Final Order t o this Court. 4

On September 21, 2015, DHS granted Mason’s Reconsideration Petition

and remanded the appeal to BHA. On October 21, 2015, an ALJ held a hearing. The

A LJ dismissed the appeal on the record due to Mason’s contemptuous conduct and

the abandon ment of her appeal. By October 29, 2015 Adjudication, the ALJ

dismissed Mason’s appeal. By October 30

, 2015 Final Administrative Action Order,

BHA affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

On December 4, 2015, DHS filed a Motion to Dismiss for Mootness

(Motion)

, wh erein DHS alleged that because Mason assert ed in her Petition for

Review that her appeal should not have been dismissed, the fact that she was given a

subsequent hearing on the merits, renders her appeal moot. On December 21, 2015,

M ason filed an Answer to DHS’ Motion. By January 4, 2016 Order, this Court

denied DHS’ Motion on the grounds that “[DHS’] order granting reconsideration was

untimely and, accordingly, a nullity. ” 5 Id.

3 Section 275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A) of DHS’ Regulations provides: “ If the appellant or his representative fails to appear at the scheduled hearing without good cause as determined by the hearing officer, the appeal will be considered to be abandoned and will be dismissed. ” 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A)

.

4 By September 3, 2015 Notice, this Court preserved August 31, 2015 as the date Mason filed her appeal based on “c ommunication [received by the Court] indicating [Claimant’s] intention to appeal” from DHS’ Final Order. September 3, 2015 Notice at 1. “Our scope of review in an appeal of an adjudication of [DHS] is limited to determining whether constitutional rights w ere violated, an error of law was committed or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.” Karpinski v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare , 13 A.3d 1050, 1052 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

5 Section 35.241( e ) of the General Rules of Administra tive Practice and Procedure provides:3 On August 15, 2016, DHS filed a Motion to Remand (Remand Motion)

,
wherein it alleged that since DHS is willing to give Mason another opportunity for a
hearing and to issue a decision on the merits that can be appealed , the matter should

be remanded to BHA

. On August 30, 2016, Mason filed an Answer to DHS’s

Remand Motion. By Au gust 31, 2016 Memorandum and Order, this Court denied

DHS’ Remand Motion “ in light of [Mason’s] strenuous opposition to [it].” Id.

Mason’s “Summary Argument” (Mason Br. at 22

- 25) and “Argument”

(Mason Br. at 26

- 30) sections of her brief herein appear to only address the merits of

the case. Because Mason failed to present any argu ment or legal support for the only

issue properly before the Court, i.e.

, whether her appeal was properly dismissed

, she

has waived the issue

. Commonwealth v. Feineigle, 690 A.2 d 748, 751 n.5 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1997) ( “ W hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs , when

the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not

consider the merits thereof.” ). Notwithstanding, because Mason f ail e d to appear for

her August 5, 2015 hearing without good cause, her appeal was properly dismissed.

See 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A)

.

For all of the above reasons, the BHA ’s August 7, 2015 Final Order is

affirmed.

Under [Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (] Pa.R.A.P [

. )] []

1701(b)(3)(ii) (relating to effect of appeal generally), if a party files a timely petition for review of an adjudication or other final order

which is a quasijudicial order for purposes of judicial review, the agency may grant an application for rehearing or reconsideration only within the time prescribed by Pa.R.A.P. [] 1512 (relating to time for petitioning for review) for the filing of a petition for review; otherwise the application shall be deemed to have been denied.

Under Pa.R.A.P. [] 1512, the time prescribed for the filing of a petition for review is measured from the date of entry of the original adjudication or other final order and not from the date of filing of the application for rehearing or reconsideration. 1 Pa. Code § 35.241( e ).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT O F PENNSYLVANIA

Florence Elizabeth Mason, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Department of Human Services, : No. 1767 C.D. 2015 Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12 th day of January , 201 7

, the Department of Human

Service s, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals’ August 7, 2015 Final Administrative

Action Order is affirmed.