IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Belinda Davis, :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 604 C

. D

. 2017
: SUBMITTED: November 22, 2017 Department of Human Services, ;

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: January 18, 2018

Belinda Davis (Davis), pro se , petitions for review of the March 22, 2017, Final Administrative Action Order of the Department of Human Services , Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) , affirm ing the March 22, 2017, decision and
order (Adjudication) of an administrative law judge (ALJ). In the Adjudication , the
ALJ ruled th at Child Care Information Services of Delaware County (CCIS) correctly established that it had overpaid child care subsidy benefits to Davis, but that the overpayment amount was incorrectly calculated. T he Adjudication directed2

CCIS to rescind its notice of overpayment, reassess the overpayment and issue a new
notice. 1 We affirm.

In February 2008, Davis was receiving child care subsidy benefits in Delaware County. (Findings of Fact (F.F.) No. 1.) In April 2010, mail that CCIS
sent to Davis at her addr ess of record was returned. (F.F. No. 2

. ) During a redetermination period in or around October 2010, CCIS discovered that Davis ’s
address with the County Assistance Office for her public benefits was a post office box that was linked to Davis’s husband’s employer. (F.F. No. 3.) On October 21, 2010, CCIS submitted a referral to the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting that OIG investigate the current address of Davis and her family
and the household’s means of income. (F.F. No. 4.) The OIG investigation revealed that Davis was the owner of “Time Fly’s Massage,” a business created in July of 2009. (F.F. No. 5.) The investigation further revealed that Davis’s household was receiving income from the following sources: Davis’s self

- e mployment, social security income for Davis’s child since 2007, and unemployment compensation for Davis’s husband from October 3, 2009
, through July 6, 2010. (F.F. No. 6.) The investigation also revealed that Davis had not been residing at her address of record since September 2007. ( Certified Record (C.R.) Item No. 7, Exhibit ( Ex. ) C

- 2 ; see F.F. No. 7 .) CCIS then contacted Davis regarding the results of the OIG investigation, and Davis admitted that she was no longer residing at her address of
record in Boothwyn, Pennsylvania ; instead , she reported an address in Folcroft,

1 Although the order remanded the matter to CCIS, Davis is permitted to appeal as of right under the circumstances here. See Pa. R.A.P. 311(f) & cmt. (stating an appeal may be taken as of right from an order of a government unit remanding a matter to an administrative agency for execution of the adjudication in a manner that does not require the exercise of administrative discretion , such as a computation of benefits ).3

Pennsylvania. (F.F. No. 8.) Subsequently, Davis failed to verify the Folcroft address and allowed CCIS to close her case as of December 23, 2010. (F.F. No. 9, Adjudication at 6.)

On March 18, 2015, based on the results of the OIG investigation, CCIS

sen t a Confirmation Notice (Notice) to Davis advising her that she owed an

overp ayment in the amount of $18,625 .00 for the period of time from February 7, 2008, through December 23, 2010, due to her failure to report income from self

employmen t and social security benefits. 2 (F.F. No. 10 ; see C.R. Item No. 7, Ex. C

1.) Davis filed an appeal. Ultimately, an order of remand was issued directing the
BHA to conduct a hearing on the me r its of Davis’s appeal. ( Adjudication at 1; C.R.
Item No. 6. )

A hearing was held on February 21, 2017, before an ALJ. (A djudication at 1.) At the hearing, CCIS argued that its overpayment calculation was accurate based upon the information available to it at that time, but that the overpayment should actually be higher based upon current information regarding Davis’s residence during the pe riod in question. ( Adjudication at 4; C.R. Item No. 11, Notes of Testimony (N.T. ) at 12

- 13, 21

- 22.) Davis, on the other hand, argued that she did not fail to report income and that the overpayment calculation was
incorrect. ( Adjudication at 4 .) Notably, Davis admitted that she was not disputing that there was an overpayment; rather, she was disputing the calculation of the overpayment. ( C.R. Item No. 11, N.T. at 30.) Davis further argued that she resided

2 The Notice actually states the overpayment amount is $18,625.50. (C.R., Ex. C

- 1.) The discrepancy is harmless here given that the Adjudication ordered CCIS to recalculate the overpayment and issue a new notice.4

in Delaware County through December 23, 2010

. ( Adjudication at 4; C.R. Item No. 11, N.T. at 31

- 32.)

After the hearing, the ALJ issued an Adjudication in which s he found that CCIS established an overpayment but that the overpayment was incorrectly
calculated. Specifically, the ALJ determined that CCIS’s overpayment calculation was based on its erroneous belief that Davis was still residing in Delaware County.
Th erefore, CCIS believed that Davis was still eligible for some CCIS benefits and
that the overpayment resulted from the fact that Davis’s co

- payment would have increased because of her higher income. However, in actuality, because Davis had been residing i n New Jersey as of November 28, 2008, she was not eligible to receive

any CCIS benefits from November 28, 2008, until December 23, 2010, when her case closed. Thus, the ALJ determined that for the period from November 28, 2008, until December 23, 2010, CC IS should have calculated the overpayment as a full overpayment of benefits received, rather than as an overpayment based upon an increase in Davis’s copayment. (Adjudication at 5

- 6.) Accordingly, the ALJ issued an order which (i) denied in part Davis’s appeal because CCIS was correct in establishing an overpayment and (ii) sustained in part Davis’s appeal because the overpayment was incorrectly calculated. The ALJ ruled that CCIS must rescind its Notice, reassess Davis’s overpayment amount in accordance with the Adjudication and issue a new notice of overpayment. (Adjudication at 6.) The Chief ALJ of the BHA affirmed the ALJ’s decision in a Final Administrative Action Order

.5 Davis now petitions this Court for review of the Final Administrative
Action Order , 3 raising multiple issues in her statement of questions presented

. 4 In

sum, Davis argues that CCIS failed to follow applicable regulations and that she should not be responsible for any claims of overpayment. Davis contends that CCIS should not be permitted to prese nt evidence on a closed claim. Davis also argues that information she provided was not used in the Adjudication and that CCIS’s
calculations are incorrect. She further argues that CCIS was permitted to re

- submit payment calculations after the hearing but that she never received a copy. Davis

asserts that there is no accurate documentation concerning who caused the overpayment and apparently argues that CCIS violated policy because CCIS knew
about the social secu rity income while her case was open and did not disclose its knowledge to OIG. Davis also argues that nothing prohibits her from purchasing property and that she is not required to disclose a ny such purchase

. Davis contends
that the evidence does not est ablish that there are any grounds under which the Department may recoup an overpayment

— i.e., that she committed fraud, that she failed to comply with Department regulations, and that she was not receiving a subsidy pending an appeal

.

3 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in ac cordance with the law, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704

. 4 To the extent Davis has failed to develop any issues in the argument portion of her br ief, this Court is precluded from conducting effective appellate review of those issues

. See Pa. R.A.P. 2119 (stating the argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued); Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 20 09 ) (stating that where a brief “fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived ” ).6 Under Department r egulations, a parent or caretaker may be required to repay an overpayment resulting from: (i) fraud, 5 (ii) failure to comply with Pennsylvania Code, Title 55, Chapter 3041 (concerning subsi di zed child care elig ibility); or (iii) a subsidy continuation pen ding an appeal when the parent or caretaker did not win the appeal. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.1 81. In the event of such an overpayment, “ [t] he parent or caretaker shall repay the eligibility agency [ 6 ] [CCIS] or Department the full amount of the overpayment.” 55 Pa. Code § 3041.185. “ T he eligibility agency shall pursue possible overpayment s in active and closed cases, including those that were voluntarily closed. ” 55 Pa. Code § 3041.182(b).

Department regulations require CCIS to consider the income of fa mily members to determine eligibility for subsidized childcare. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.32. Family members include: (i) the parent or caretaker of the child for whom the subsidy is sought; (ii) the parent’s or caretaker’s spouse; and (iii) children, excludin g the child’s earned income. Id

. Additionally, family members must reside in the Commonwealth. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.42 (a)

. The parent or caretaker is the primary
source of verification to establish and maintain eligibility for subsidized care. 55
Pa. Co de § 3041.61(a). I f the eligibility agency suspects that the parent or caretaker

5 Fraud is defined as:

[t]he inten tional act of a parent or caretaker that results in obtaining, continuing, or increasing child care subsidy for which the family is eligible and involves any of the following: (i) A false or misleading statement. (ii) The failure to disclose informatio n. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.3.
6 An eligibility agency is “[t]he entity designated by the Department with authority to purchase subsidized child care and determine a family’s eligibility and co

- payment. ” 55 Pa. Code § 3041.3.7

is withholding information or has falsified information given, the agency can make
collateral contact. 7 55 Pa. Code § 3041.62(a)(5).

Here, the OIG investigation revea led that Davis ’s household was receiving income that had not been reported. (F.F. No. 6.) Notably, at the hearing, Davis admitted that her son was receiving social security income. ( C.R. Item No. 11, N.T. at 30.) Additionally, Davis agreed that she w as not disputing that there was an overpayment; rather, she was disputing the calculation of the overpayment. ( C.R. Item No. 11, N.T. at 30.)

The investigation also revealed that Davis had not been residing at her reported Boothwyn address since Septe mber 2007. (F.F. No. 7.) When CCIS contacted Davis regarding the results of the investigation, she admitted she no longer
resided there and, instead, reported an ad dress of Folcroft, Pennsylvania . (F.F. No.
8

. ) However, Davis subsequently failed to ver ify th e Folcroft address and allowed
her case to close . (F.F. No. 9.) Indeed, the ALJ found that Davis had been residing in New Jersey since November 2008. (F.F. No. 17.) The ALJ found that on November 28, 2008, Davis and her husband purchased a home in New Jersey and that the mortgage for that residen ce required Davis to occupy the purchased property. (F.F. Nos. 13

- 14.) Although Davis denied residing in New Jersey, the
ALJ found that Claimant was not credible. (F.F. No. 17.)

The Department’s r egulations require that Davis reside in Pennsylvania to be eligible for benefits. See 55 Pa. Code § 3041.42(a). Further, Davis had a duty

7 Collateral contact is “[a] fo rm of verification in which the eligibility agency obtains information from a third party.” 55 Pa. Code § 3041.3.8

to verify her address with CCIS, see 55 Pa. Code § § 3041.61(a) & 3041.66, and a duty to report any change of address , se e 55 Pa. Code § 3041.127 (b)(6)

. Davis also
had a duty to report all of the family’s income, and she failed to do so. See 55 Pa. Code § 3041.32 (concerning income counted to determine e l i gibility); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.61(a) (concerning parent as primary source of verification to maintain eligibility); 55 Pa. Code § 3041.65 (concerning acceptable forms of verification of income).

The fact that Davis was receiving subsidized child care for a period of time in which she had unreported income and for a period of time in which she did not reside in Pennsylvania support the finding of an overpayment. Davis’s failure to reside in Pennsylvania and to verify her address, as well as her failure to report income, all constitute violations of Chapter 3041, thereby serving as grounds for CCIS to seek reimbursement of an overpayment. See 55 Pa. Code § 3041.181. Moreover, the fact that CCIS sought recoupment of the overpayment after the case
was cl osed is of no moment. CCIS has an obligation to pursue possible overpayment, even in cases that were voluntarily closed. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.182(b).

To the extent Davis argues that information she provided was not used in the hearings, he r arguments are nothing more than a challenge to the ALJ’s determinations concerning the weight and credibility of the evidence. In our appellate role, this Court may not reweigh the evidence or disturb those
determinations. Bucks County Children and Yout h Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare , 977 A.2d 1254, 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Additionally, t o the extent Davis raises any issues concerning the calculation and the9

amount of the overpayment, those issues are not before us. The BHA ordered CCIS to recalculate the overpayment and issue a new notice with a new overpayment

amount. 8

Accordingly, we affirm.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior J udge

8 The ALJ kept the record open for three business days to permit CCIS to submit a report of its overpayment c alculations , and CCIS submitted the report. Davis filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in her favor based upon her allegation that she never received a copy of CCIS’s submission, even though she was copied on the document. T he ALJ refused to consider the motion bec ause the record was closed. Nonetheless , the ALJ determined that , based on the fact that the overpayment must be re calculated, Davis’s alleged lack of receipt of the document was not prejudicial to her. Before this Court, Davis complains about the ALJ’s refusal to consider her motion and states that, being pro se , she was not aware of how the process worked . We agree with the ALJ that Davis suffered no prejudice in this regard given that CCIS must recalculate the overpayment and issu e a new notice. More over, pro se litigants must to some extent assume the risk that their lack of legal training may prove to be their undoing. Vann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Belinda Davis, :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 604 C

. D

. 2017
: Department of Human Services, ;

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18 th d ay of January , 201 8 , the order of the Department of Human of Services is hereby affirmed.

_____________________________________ BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior J udge