Court Opinion

ID: 9623356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:31:34.358622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:28.866737
License: Public Domain

McInturff, J.
(specially concurring)—The majority recognizes that Alvina Toulou promptly reported receipt of *147additional income to DSHS (as she had been notified to do upon application for benefits), but it then holds her to compliance with a rule of which she was uninformed and unaware. WAC 388-28-484(2)(d). Although the result reached by the majority is correct under present law, I believe DSHS should notify welfare applicants/recipients not only that a change in economic circumstances must be reported within 10 days, but also that benefits may be terminated for up to 2 months if the additional money is spent for unapproved purposes; that this may be done under WAC 388-28-484(2) (d). Such a warning would place a minimal burden on DSHS and would avoid others being in the situation in which Alvina has been placed.
Since lack of notification of the consequences of failing to receive approval for expenditures of this additional income was not alleged as error, I cannot assume the expenditures would have been allowed under the above WAC regulation. I am constrained to concur in the result.