NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

DAVID GALAVIZ, Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, an Agency, and 

DDD ARIZONA DES, Appellees.

No. 1 CA-UB 17-0167

Appeal from the A.D.E.S. Appeals Board

No. P-1435466-001-BR

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David Galaviz, Phoenix

Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Carol A. Salvati

Counsel for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

FILED 12-21-2017
GALAVIZ v. ADES/AZDES

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Presiding Judge:

¶1 David Galaviz appeals a final decision of the Arizona 

Department of Economic Security (“ADES” or “the Department”) requiring 

him to repay $293 in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(“SNAP”)1 benefits erroneously issued to him. For the following reasons, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In September 2013, Galaviz applied for SNAP benefits with 

ADES. In his written application and again, during interviews with two 

ADES workers who reviewed the application, Galaviz disclosed that he had 

a felony drug conviction and had recently been released from incarceration.

He also provided ADES with a copy of his judgment of conviction and 

sentencing order.

¶3 Although Galaviz’ felony drug conviction presumably

rendered him ineligible to receive SNAP benefits,2 ADES preliminarily 

approved SNAP benefits on an expedited basis. See 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(9)

(2012). In September 2013, Galaviz received $93 in SNAP benefits, and in 

October 2013, he received $200 in SNAP benefits. After verifying that 

Galaviz had a 2009 felony drug conviction for possession of narcotic drugs 

for sale, however, ADES concluded Galaviz was ineligible and stopped 

providing SNAP benefits.

¶4 On January 15, 2014, ADES sent Galaviz a Notice for 

Repayment of a Nutrition Assistance Overpayment, stating that he had 

 

1 SNAP is the Food Stamp Program’s successor. See Food and Nutrition 

Act of 2008, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 to 2036(b) (2012). The federal government and 

state agencies jointly administer SNAP. See, e.g., 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(a) 

(governing how state agencies operate SNAP programs, including 

application processing). ADES determines eligibility for SNAP applicants 

in Arizona. See des.az.gov (last visited Dec. 15, 2017).

2 At the time Galaviz applied for SNAP benefits, persons convicted 

after August 22, 1996, of a drug-related felony having as an element the 

possession, use, or distribution of a defined controlled substance were 

categorically ineligible for SNAP benefits in Arizona. See 7 C.F.R. 

§ 273.11(m). Effective August 9, 2017, the Arizona Legislature conditionally 

modified that ineligibility. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 46-219 (Supp. 

2017) (added by 2017 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 323, § 4 (1st Reg. Sess.)).
GALAVIZ v. ADES/AZDES

Decision of the Court

3

been overpaid in the amount of $293 and classifying the overpayment as 

agency error. Galaviz timely appealed the notice, prompting a February 26, 

2014 evidentiary hearing.

¶5 At the February 26 telephonic hearing, Galaviz acknowledged 

having received $293 in SNAP benefits. Consequently, the primary issue 

before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was whether approval of 

Galaviz’ application on an expedited basis exempted him from repaying 

the benefits he erroneously received.

¶6 On March 21, 2014, the ALJ, applying 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.11(m) 

and 273.18, affirmed the Notice for Repayment of a Nutrition Assistance 

Overpayment. The ALJ found Galaviz ineligible for benefits because he 

had a disqualifying prior felony drug conviction, and further found Galaviz 

liable for the $293 overpayment after concluding that “the Federal 

Regulations do not provide an exception from liability for an overpayment 

[based on errant approval made on an expedited basis].” On March 31, 

2014, Galaviz timely sought review of the ALJ’s decision.

¶7 On June 12, 2014, the ADES Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s

decision, concluding Galaviz had been overpaid in the amount of $293 and 

was liable for restitution. In explaining its decision, the Appeals Board, 

citing 7 C.F.R. § 273.18, noted, “The regulations do not make exception for 

cases in which the overpayment was caused by the Department’s error. The 

regulations also do not make exception for cases in which the [SNAP] 

benefits were issued to the Claimant on an expedited basis, and they do not 

provide for the exercise of equitable discretion by the [ALJ].” Galaviz 

timely requested review of the Appeals Board’s decision, and on October 2, 

2014, the Appeals Board affirmed its decision upon review.

¶8 On October 20, 2014, Galaviz filed a timely application for 

appeal to this court with the clerk of the Appeals Board. Due to agency 

negligence and/or malfeasance, ADES did not transmit the application for 

appeal to this court until February 24, 2017.

¶9 On June 1, 2017, this court granted Galaviz’ application for 

appeal and ordered the parties to address (1) whether Galaviz is entitled to 

a waiver under A.R.S. § 46-213(B) (2017), and (2) whether ADES should be 
GALAVIZ v. ADES/AZDES

Decision of the Court

4

equitably estopped from collecting any overpayment.3 We have 

jurisdiction over Galaviz’ appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1993(B) (2017).

ANALYSIS

¶10 Galaviz argues that he did not misrepresent the fact of his 

felony drug conviction, that he was transparent throughout the process, 

and that he should not have to repay ADES because ADES’ approval of his

application for SNAP benefits on an expedited basis should exempt him 

from repaying the benefits erroneously issued to him.

¶11 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

upholding the Appeals Board’s decision and will affirm if that decision is 

supported by any reasonable interpretation of the record. Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t 

of Econ. Sec., 191 Ariz. 43, 45-46 (App. 1997) (citation omitted). However, 

we review de novo whether the Appeals Board properly applied the law to 

the facts. Bowman v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 182 Ariz. 543, 545 (App. 1995).

¶12 In this case, Galaviz’ 2009 class two felony drug conviction for 

possession of narcotic drugs for sale rendered him ineligible for SNAP 

benefits. See 7 C.F.R. § 273.11(m). Further, at the time Galaviz applied for 

and received SNAP benefits, the Arizona Legislature had not enacted a 

statute exempting individuals domiciled in Arizona from this exclusion.4 

Accordingly, Galaviz was ineligible for SNAP benefits.

¶13 Moreover, ADES’ provisional expedited approval of Galaviz’

application for SNAP benefits did not exempt him from repaying the 

benefits he received due to agency error. Nothing in the Federal 

Regulations requires ADES to provide an exception from liability for an 

overpayment under the circumstances present here, even if the agency has 

been grossly neglectful in forwarding an application for appeal to this 

court. See generally 7 C.F.R. § 273.18. Consequently, Galaviz is responsible 

for repaying the $293 in SNAP benefits that he erroneously received.

 

3 Neither Galaviz, appearing pro se, nor ADES directly addressed 

these issues in their briefing.

4 See Maggie McCarty et al., Cong. Research Serv., R42394, Drug 

Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance

13 (Nov. 28, 2016), located at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42394.pdf.
GALAVIZ v. ADES/AZDES

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm the final decision of the ADES Appeals Board. 

However, we direct ADES to consider the appropriateness of 

compromising all or part of the claim under 7 C.F.R. § 273.18(e)(7), which 

provides that a state agency “may compromise a claim or any portion of a 

claim if it can be reasonably determined that a household’s economic 

circumstances dictate that the claim will not be paid in three years.” See also

A.R.S. § 46-213(B) (“If there are insufficient assets or resources to justify 

collection, if the recipient has not obtained assistance or services by 

intentional misrepresentation or if the overpayment was due to an error on 

the part of the department of economic security, the department may waive 

a repayment by the recipient.”); cf. A.R.S. § 23-787 (Supp. 2017) (“If 

[employment security] benefits to which a person is not entitled are 

received without any fault on the person’s part and if repayment or 

deduction from future benefits would be against equity and good 

conscience, the department may waive all or a portion of the amount 

overpaid.”).