Court Opinion

ID: 9947673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 15:14:23.294903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:39.565705
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Frank Nellom,                                     :
                       Petitioner                 :
                                                  :
               v.                                 :   No. 1519 C.D. 2022
                                                  :   Submitted: February 6, 2024
Department of Human Services,                     :
                 Respondent                       :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
               HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE DUMAS                                                        FILED: March 5, 2024
               Frank Nellom (Nellom), pro se, has petitioned this Court to review an
adjudication of the Department of Human Services (DHS), Bureau of Hearings and
Appeals (BHA), which dismissed Nellom’s appeal. Nellom challenges, inter alia,
BHA’s reasoning that because he hung up the phone, he abandoned the appeal. We
affirm.
                                     I. BACKGROUND1
               Briefly, DHS notified Nellom that he was ineligible for certain services.
Op. at 2. Nellom appealed to BHA, which scheduled a telephonic hearing.2 Id.
       1
          Unless stated otherwise, we adopt this background from BHA’s adjudication. BHA’s
Adjudication (Op.), 10/25/22, at 1-2. Generally, we review the record in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party and give that party the benefit of all logical and reasonable inferences. E.M.
v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 191 A.3d 44, 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). We also construe pro se pleadings
liberally. Hill v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 271 A.3d 569, 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (cleaned up).
        2
          Although not relevant to our disposition, BHA had initially dismissed Nellom’s appeal
because he “failed to pursue the appeal.” Adjudication, 5/19/22. Nellom successfully petitioned
for reconsideration, and the Secretary of Human Services remanded for a hearing by BHA. Order
of Remand, 7/14/22.
Prior to the start of the hearing, the administrative law judge conferenced in the
participants, including Nellom and Shannon Kein, a representative of the
Independent Enrollment Broker. Notes of Testimony (N.T.) Hr’g, 8/15/22, at 2.
               The judge asked Kein if she wanted a pre-hearing conference before the
hearing formally commenced. Id. at 14. A pre-hearing conference permits the parties
to “discuss the case. See if there are any updates or changes, see if it can be resolved
and . . . if not,” Nellom could move forward with his appeal. Id. Kein stated she
would like a pre-hearing conference, and in response, Kein and Nellom began their
discussion. Id. at 14-17. Mid-discussion, Nellom questioned Kein, who attempted
to respond but Nellom interrupted her answer. Id. at 17. The judge repeatedly
interceded, asking Nellom to let Kein respond fully. Id. at 17-18.
               After a further exchange, the judge asked Nellom if he wanted to have
a hearing. Id. at 21. Nellom did not directly answer. Id. The judge requested Nellom
to stop interrupting Kein, but Nellom “became agitated and hung up the telephone.”
Op. at 2; N.T. Hr’g at 22.3 The judge attempted to call back Nellom, but the call
      3
          We quote the relevant exchange:
      Judge: Mr. Nellom. Mr. Nellom. You’re repeatedly interrupting Ms. Kein, which
      is not only disrespectful, but we cannot conduct a hearing here today if you are
      constantly going to interrupt everyone. You’ll have your opportunity to speak, but
      you need to give others their opportunity to speak, as well.
      Mr. Nellom: All right. Can I - if I find out she’s saying something that I think is
      wrong and I’m objecting to because you see - let me - just understand me position.
      Judge: Sir. Sir. Sir. This is just a Pre-Hearing Conference -
      Mr. Nellom: I tell you what you make up your mind - you aren’t going to keep me
      on this phone with this nonsense. Tell you what. You write it out. You do what
      you want, and we can appeal it. Let’s go to the next court – I’m not playing with
      you about this hearing. If the policy says something, I’m entitled to it. All this new
      stuff -
      Judge: Okay.
      Mr. Nellom: - that you all are bringing into play. It’s not going to happen.
      Judge: All right. So -
      Mr. Nellom: Write it out. Let’s argue it. I’m not going to have a hearing. Write it

                                                2
went to voicemail. N.T. Hr’g at 24-25. The judge noted that the hearing “never
started” as Nellom hung up during the pre-hearing conference. Id. at 25.
               The judge dismissed Nellom’s appeal, and BHA affirmed. Order,
9/27/22; Final Admin. Action Order, 10/25/22. In support, BHA noted that Nellom
“became agitated and hung up the telephone during a pre-hearing conference.” Op.
at 2. BHA thus concluded that Nellom had abandoned the hearing. Id. (citing 55
Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii)). Nellom timely appealed to this Court.4
                                          II. ISSUES
               Nellom raises four issues in his statement of questions involved, which
we group as follows. Nellom’s Br. at 4. Nellom claims that he was denied due
process because his appeal was dismissed.5 Id. He also alleges that DHS violated
his right to certain benefits and violated federal law. Id.
                                     III. DISCUSSION6
               In support of his initial issue, Nellom presents no argument. See id. at
9-11. Nevertheless, we note that his statement of facts quotes from BHA’s order that
he abandoned his appeal and then states that the “[f]acts establish” some sort of

       out. Whatever your decision is, write that shit out, man. I don’t have time for this
       shit.
       Judge: Sir? Are you still there, sir? Mr. Nellom, are you still there? All right. It
       appears he hung up. . . .
N.T. Hr’g at 22-23.
        4
          Nellom filed a pleading in this Court that we construed as an appropriate petition for
review.
        5
          We quote Nellom’s issue: “Does [DHS’s] reason for denial: ‘Because [Nellom] hung up
the telephone, [Nellom] abandoned the hearing pursuant to 55 Pa. Code 275.4(e)(iii). Therefore,
[Nellom’s] appeal is dismissed.’ Demonstrate disingenuous by the testimony of [Nellom], and Ms.
Kein about policy. Denied due process of being considered?” Nellom’s Br. at 4.
        6
          Generally, we review a BHA decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial
evidence, complies with the law, or violates constitutional rights. Greensburg Nursing &
Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 633 A.2d 249, 250 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (Greensburg).

                                                3
disingenuousness. Id. at 8.7
               Initially, “pro se status confers no special benefit upon the” petitioner.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).8
Although we give a pro se litigant leeway, this Court is “neither obliged, nor even
particularly equipped, to develop an argument for a party. To do so places the Court
in the conflicting roles of advocate and neutral arbiter.” Martinez v. City of Reading
Police Dep’t, 289 A.3d 1136, 1139 n.13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). Indeed, “any person
choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Wilkins,
903 A.2d at 1285 (citation omitted). For example, when “issues are raised in the
statement of questions involved, but not addressed in the argument section of the
brief, courts” may find waiver. In re Condemnation ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 76 A.3d
101, 106 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d
265, 277 (Pa. Super. 2016).
               In any event, 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii) provides when an appeal is
“considered abandoned.” 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii). “If the appellant . . . 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.” Id. §

       7
          Because of our disposition, we need not summarize his other arguments, which are
somewhat opaque. For example, he argues “administrative res judicata” based upon an October
2017 order entered by an administrative law judge for the Social Security Administration. Nellom’s
Br. at 10-11. He did not explain the relevance to the instant DHS case. See generally Nellom v.
Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-01268-RAL (E.D. Pa. filed Nov. 13, 2023), 2023 WL 7544996.
        DHS counters the administrative law judge has discretion to supervise the hearing and
presentation of the testimony. DHS’s Br. at 6-7. DHS maintains that “regulations and due process”
provided Nellom “an opportunity to present his case . . . but he chose instead to hang up during
the proceeding and not answer his phone after that, thereby abandoning his appeal.” Id. at 8-9
(citing 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(g)); accord id. at 6 (citing 55 Pa. Code § 275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A)).
        8
          We may cite to Superior Court or unreported opinions for their persuasive value. See
Pa.R.A.P 126(b)(1); 210 Pa. Code §§ 65.37, 69.414(a).

                                                4
275.4(e)(6)(iii)(A). In an unreported case, this Court affirmed BHA’s dismissal of
an appeal as abandoned because the petitioner failed to “call in or participate” at the
hearing. Zied-Campbell v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1537 C.D. 2017,
Mar. 22, 2019), 2019 WL 1313224, at *1. In Zied-Campbell, the petitioner appealed
the dismissal to this Court and primarily argued the merits. Id. at *1-2. The petitioner
also claimed to be unaware of the telephonic hearing. Id. at *2. The Zied-Campbell
Court rejected that argument because the record reflected proper notice. Id. Thus,
the Court held that BHA properly dismissed the appeal due to the petitioner’s
abandonment. Id. Because the petitioner had abandoned the appeal, the Court did
not address the petitioner’s merits arguments. See id.
             Instantly, although Nellom raised the issue of the abandonment of his
appeal, he failed to argue the issue in his brief. On that basis alone, we could find
waiver. See, e.g., Lenfest, 152 A.3d at 277. But even if we relied on the other portions
of Nellom’s brief, i.e., his issue and statement of facts, he simply did not address 55
Pa. Code 275.4(e)(6)(iii). Nevertheless, we observe this case is somewhat analogous
to Zied-Campbell.      Initially, unlike Zied-Campbell, notice of the telephone
conference is not at issue because Nellom participated in a telephonic pre-hearing
conference. Cf. Zied-Campbell, 2019 WL 1313224, at *2. Nellom, however, hung
up the phone, did not answer the judge’s callback, and did not otherwise attempt to
reinitiate the call. See N.T. Hr’g at 22-25. On this record, we discern no due process
violation because Nellom was, in fact, participating in the call. Cf. Zied-Campbell,
2019 WL 1313224, at *2. Somewhat like the petitioner in Zied-Campbell, Nellom
did not excuse his subsequent absence from the actual hearing. Cf. id. Finally, like
the Zied-Campbell Court, because Nellom abandoned his BHA appeal, we need not
address his remaining issues. Cf. id.

                                           5
                              IV. CONCLUSION
            For these reasons, we affirm BHA’s October 25, 2022 order. See
Greensburg, 633 A.2d at 250 n.1. Nellom waived his challenge to BHA’s disposition
of his appeal. Regardless, Nellom failed to establish a due process violation.
Because of our disposition, we need not address Nellom’s remaining issues. See
Zied-Campbell, 2019 WL 1313224, at *2.

                                         LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

                                         6
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Frank Nellom,                         :
                 Petitioner           :
                                      :
           v.                         :   No. 1519 C.D. 2022
                                      :
Department of Human Services,         :
                 Respondent           :

                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2024, we AFFIRM the October 25,
2022 order entered in favor of the Department of Human Services and adverse to
Frank Nellom.

                                      LORI A. DUMAS, Judge