Court Opinion

ID: 9544813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:02:02.724873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:41.205080
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, Chief Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with the disposition of the majority with reference to appellants Lopez and Bonacquisti because it was improper to exclude those appellants from eligibility for hospitalization and medical care under the second standard for eligibility set forth in A.R.S. Sec. 11-297(A), “... unemployable totally dependent upon the state or county government for financial support, ...”
I respectfully disagree with the majority position with respect to appellant McMullen who claimed eligibility on the basis that she was “... an employable of sworn low income without sufficient funds to provide ... necessary hospitalization and medical care, ...” per A.R.S. Sec. 11-297(A). The Cochise County Board of Supervisors used DES Rule R6-3-1213 to define “sworn low income” and established a formula as set forth in the majority opinion for determining whether an applicant qualified under that standard. The formula was reasonably related to the purpose of the legislation. Ferguson v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 122 Ariz. 290, 594 P.2d 544 (App.1979). I would therefore hold that the county’s method of determining “annual income” is not arbitrary and capricious and would affirm as to appellant McMullen.