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), affirming the March 22, 2017, decision and 

order (Adjudication) of an administrative law judge (ALJ). In the Adjudication, the 

ALJ ruled that 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. The Adjudication directed 
2

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 address 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-employment, 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 

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

overpayment 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 selfemployment and social security benefits.2

 (F.F. No. 10; see C.R. Item No. 7, Ex. C1.) Davis filed an appeal. Ultimately, an order of remand was issued directing the 

BHA to conduct a hearing on the merits of Davis’s appeal. (Adjudication at 1; C.R. 

Item No. 6.)

A hearing was held on February 21, 2017, before an ALJ. 

(Adjudication 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 period 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 she 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. 

Therefore, 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 in 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, CCIS 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 present 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 security 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 any such purchase. Davis contends 

that the evidence does not establish 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 accordance 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 brief, 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. 2009) (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 regulations, 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 subsidized child care 

eligibility); or (iii) a subsidy continuation pending an appeal when the parent or 

caretaker did not win the appeal. 55 Pa. Code § 3041.181. 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. “The 

eligibility agency shall pursue possible overpayments 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 family 

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, excluding 

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. Code § 3041.61(a). If the eligibility agency suspects that the parent or caretaker 

 

5 Fraud is defined as:

[t]he intentional 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 information.

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 revealed 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 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.) 

The investigation also revealed that Davis had not been residing at her 

reported Boothwyn address since September 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 address of Folcroft, Pennsylvania. (F.F. No. 

8.) However, Davis subsequently failed to verify the 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 residence 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 regulations 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] form 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, see 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 eligibility); 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 closed 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, her 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 Youth Social Services Agency v. 

Department of Public Welfare, 977 A.2d 1254, 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 

Additionally, to the extent Davis raises any issues concerning the calculation and the 
9

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 Judge

 

8 The ALJ kept the record open for three business days to permit CCIS to submit a report of 

its overpayment calculations, 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. The ALJ refused to consider the motion because 

the record was closed. Nonetheless, the ALJ determined that, based on the fact that the 

overpayment must be recalculated, 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 issue a new notice. Moreover, 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 18th day of January, 2018, the order of the Department 

of Human of Services is hereby affirmed.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

Senior Judge