Court Opinion

ID: 9535389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:47.284941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:14.205247
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
Appellants contend that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent to sustain guilty verdicts on charges of welfare fraud. I agree and, accordingly, would vacate the judgments of sentence.
Criminal complaints charging appellant with violating § 481(a) of the Public Welfare Code 1 were filed on January *24721, 1976. On September 20, 1976, after a consolidated trial, a jury found them guilty of the charges. On March 6, 1978, after denying post-verdict motions, the lower court suspended sentence, placed each appellant on one year probation, and ordered each to pay $1143.00 as restitution within 10 months. This appeal followed.
Regarded in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence presented at appellant’s jury trial may be summarized as follows:
In early August 1974, appellants applied for assistance.2 Soon thereafter they began to receive biweekly assistance checks in the amount of $127. Both appellants admitted that they knew they had an obligation to report any change in income to the Welfare Department.3 However, the Commonwealth presented no evidence of any specific reporting procedures with which the Luthers had to comply. The Commonwealth’s principal witness, Judith Zabawsky, an income maintenance worker, admitted that there was no definite format describing either when, how, or whom recipients should inform concerning their employment.4 Ms. Zabawski testified that recipients often informed her by letter or a telephone call.
On September 25, 1974, Mrs. Luther began to work for an attorney as his secretary. The attorney’s office was located near a restaurant frequented at lunchtime by several Welfare Department employees. The employees regularly observed Mrs. Luther entering and leaving the office; Mrs. Luther saw them and recognized them as employees of the Welfare Department. Towards the end of January 1975, Mr. Luther told those same employees that his wife was *248working for the attorney. That same day Zabawsky telephoned Mrs. Luther at work and asked her whether she was employed. Mrs. Luther told Zabawsky that she was employed and that she had not reported her employment to Zabawsky because she had assumed that the Welfare Department knew from its own employees that she was working.5 Zabawsky requested Mrs. Luther’s pay stubs or, if she had no stubs, a wage statement from her employer in order to verify her employment and to compute any adjustments in the assistance grant. Zabawsky testified that the Luthers at no time denied that Mrs. Luther was employed. She further testified that if Mrs. Luther “would have sent . in her pay stubs, she would still have been eligible for financial assistance at a reduced rate. [She was] not allowed to discontinue anyone without verification of some sort.” Zabawsky sent several requests to Mrs. Luther’s employer for wage information, but he did not respond. Zabawsky then sent a notice to the Luthers that their assistance would be discontinued in 15 days due to overpayment; Zabawsky estimated the amount of overpayment from October 1974, using information Mrs. Luther had given her. The Luthers received assistance up to February 26, 1975, at which point assistance was discontinued.
On September 13, 1975, Mrs. Luther’s employer informed the Bureau of Claims Settlement of the Welfare Department that he had employed Mrs. Luther since September 25, 1974 at $100 per week. From September 25, 1974 to February 26, 1975, the date assistance was discontinued, Mr. Luther received and endorsed6 nine financial assistance *249checks totalling $1143.00, which is the amount of overpayment claimed by the Welfare Department.
Section 481(a) of the Public Welfare Code provides:
“Any person who, either prior to, or at the time of, or subsequent to the application for assistance, by means of a wilfully false statement of misrepresentation, or by impersonation or other fraudulent means, secures, or attempts to secure, or aids or abets any person in securing assistance, or Federal food stamps, under this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or to undergo imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, and also shall be sentenced to make restitution of any moneys he has received by reason of any such false statement, misrepresentation, impersonation, or fraudulent means.”
In the absence of a statutory definition of terms, we must construe them according to their common and approved usage, keeping in mind, however, that because the provision is penal in nature, we must construe it strictly. Statutory Construction Act of 1972, Act of Nov. 25, 1970, No. 230, added Dec. 6, 1972, No. 290, § 3; 1 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1903(a) and 1928(b)(1). “Willful” means “done deliberately: not accidental or without purpose: INTENTIONAL”, and “fraud” means “an intentional misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him. .” Webster’s Third International Dictionary, 2617 (1967). See 55 Pennsylvania Code § 255.3(b).7 Compare 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(1) and (2).
*250In the instant case, I do not believe the Commonwealth’s evidence supports a finding that the Luthers secured assist*251anee “by means of a willfully false statement of misrepresentation ... or other fraudulent means.” 62 P.S. § 481(a). The facts and circumstances of the case adduced at trial show that by January 1975 the Luthers had expressly informed the Welfare Department fully and accurately of the terms of Mrs. Luther’s employment. In fact, the Welfare Department based its original estimate of the amount of overpayment upon the information which Mrs. Luther gave. Concerning the Luther’s delay from September 25, 1974 to January 1975 in reporting Mrs. Luther’s employment, I would note that (1) no specific procedures existed for reporting employment and (2) all the testimony indicated that the Luthers never denied, misstated or attempted to conceal Mrs. Luther’s employment, or otherwise exhibited secretive or evasive behavior from which a willful intent to deceive may be inferred. From the moment the Welfare Department first contacted them in January 1975, the Luthers cooperated fully. Under these circumstances, therefore, I would conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support appellants’ convictions under § 481(a).8

. Public Welfare Code, Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. 31, No. 21, art. 4, § 481; 62 P.S. § 481(a).

. See Public Welfare Code, supra; 62 P.S. § 402 for the definition of “assistance.”

. See Public Welfare Code, supra; 62 P.S. § 432.2(d). The Commonwealth does not claim that the Luthers’ application for assistance contained any misstatements.

. Redetermination of eligibility “shall not be less frequent than every six months.” Public Welfare Code, supra; 62 P.S. § 432.2(c). The Commonwealth presented no evidence concerning the frequency with which the Luthers’ eligibility was reviewed.

. In fact, Zabawsky testified that at least since mid-December 1974 the Welfare Office had had a “suspicion” that Mrs. Luther was working, based upon the observations of the Department employees. The Welfare Department did not approach the Luthers about this until January 1975.

. On the back of each check was the following:
“By endorsing this check, I certify that I have notified my County Board of Assistance of all changes in the facts as stated in my application for Assistance, and that neither I nor any member of my family has any earnings from employments or other resources which would affect the eligibility of myself or my family which I have not *249reported to said Board. I know that I can be penalized by fine or imprisonment, or both, for any false statement.”

. 55 Pennsylvania Code § 255.3(b) provides as follows:
“(b) Criteria for distinguishing between suspected fraud and non-fraud. The determining factor in distinguishing between fraud and nonfraud [with respect to overpayments] will be the intent of the client. Intent will be established by examining and evaluating pertinent objective facts, including the following:
*250“(1) Actions and attitudes of the client. The answers to the following questions will be employed in determining the actions and attitudes of the client:
“(i) Did the client deny the fact that caused the overpayment?
“(ii) Did the client provide information that was misleading or incorrect?
“(iii) Were any of the actions of the client directed to concealing information? For example, did he deface or alter documents or arrange appointments with the caseworker so as to conceal other activities?
“(iv) What was the reaction of the client to the fact of the overpayment? What did he see as the cause?
“(2) Nature of the overpayment. The answers to the following questions will be employed in determining the nature of the overpayment:
“(i) Was the overpayment in such an amount that the client could not have failed to realize that his assistance payment was incorrect?
“(ii) Did the period of overpayment extend over such a period of time that the client had repeated opportunities to report?
“(iii) Were there previous overpayments for related reasons?
“(3) The ability of the client to comprehend requirements. The answers to the following questions will be employed in determining the ability of the client to comprehend requirements:
“(i) Are there any physical disabilities, such as advanced age, defective hearing or vision, or illness which affect the ability of the client to understand the requirements and his responsibilities in connection with them?
“(ii) Are there any mental limitations, such as emotional or psychiatric disturbances, or mental retardation which affect the client’s understanding of what is expected of him?
“(iii) Does the client have any social handicaps, such as illiteracy, language barriers, or lack of education which affect his comprehension of requirements?
“(iv) Were there social factors at the time of the overpayment such as death, accident, serious illness, desertion, and the like that so involved the client that comprehension of the importance of meeting reporting requirements was affected?
“(4) Quality of worker’s job with the client. The answers to the following questions will be employed in determining the quality of the worker’s job with the client:
“(i) Does the case record indicate that the pertinent regulations were explained in terms suited to the capacity of the client?
“(ii) Were appropriate reporting plans worked out with the client?
“(iii) Were redeterminations of eligibility made as frequently as appropriate to the situation?
“(iv) Has the method of working with the client been such as to demonstrate to him the importance of reporting changes in his circumstances? Has the capacity of the client for carrying responsibility been evaluated realistically?”

. I note specifically that the Public Welfare Code, supra provides both administrative and civil procedures for recoupment of overpayments. Public Welfare Code, supra; 62 P.S. § 432.16.