IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elaine Mickman, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1039 C.D. 2022
: Submitted: October 10, 2023
Department of Human Services, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: November 30, 2023
Elaine Mickman (Petitioner), pro se, petitions for review of a Final
Administrative Action Order (Order) of the Department of Human Services’
(Department) Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) affirming an Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) Adjudication (Adjudication), which: sustained Petitioner’s
appeals of the Department’s reduction of Petitioner’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in January and February 2022, but stated no
remedy was available because Petitioner received all SNAP benefits for which her
household was eligible, and denied Petitioner’s appeal of the Department’s denial of
Petitioner’s application for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP) benefits. Petitioner also challenges the Secretary of Human Services’
(Secretary) denial of reconsideration. After review, we are constrained to affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner receives SNAP benefits as a two-person household for herself and
her adult son (Son). (Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶ 1.) Both Petitioner and Son meet the
criteria under SNAP to be considered individuals with disabilities. (Id. ¶ 2.)
Petitioner receives monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and a monthly
State Supplemental Payment (SSP). (Id. ¶ 7.) Son receives a monthly Retirement
Survivors Disability Insurance (RSDI) benefit, earns income from a part-time
position at Lightbox, LLC (Lightbox), and is a full-time college student. (Id. ¶¶ 3,
4, 8.)
In January 2022, Petitioner received a notice from the Department informing
her that due to a cost of living adjustment (COLA) increase to her SSI benefits and
Son’s RSDI benefits, her household SNAP benefits were decreasing from $445 to
$389 per month effective February 2022 (January 2022 SNAP Notice).1 (Certified
Record (C.R.) at 11; FOF ¶¶ 9-10.) Around this same time, Petitioner applied for
LIHEAP benefits and indicated on the application that she did not want the
Department to use the income from her SNAP file; instead, Petitioner provided her
and Son’s monthly SSI and RSDI benefits for 2021 and 2020 but did not list Son’s
earned income from his part-time position at Lightbox as household income. (FOF
¶¶ 21-25.) Because Petitioner indicated the Department may not use her SNAP file,
the Department consulted its automated sources to verify Petitioner’s household
income for December 2021. (Id. ¶ 26.) The Department discovered during the
LIHEAP income verification process that Son’s income was higher than what the
Department previously accounted for in calculating Petitioner’s SNAP benefits in
the January 2022 SNAP Notice. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 29-30.) The Department then
1
BHA Docket No. 460352809-017.
2
recalculated Petitioner’s household income for SNAP benefits with Son’s updated
earned income and sent Petitioner a letter in February 2022 informing her that her
SNAP benefits were decreasing from $389.00 to $339.00 per month effective
February 2022 (February 2022 SNAP Notice).2 (C.R. at 20; FOF ¶¶ 29, 31.) The
Department also sent Petitioner a letter in February 2022 informing her that she was
not eligible for LIHEAP benefits because her household income was over the
threshold (LIHEAP Notice).3 (C.R. at 31; FOF ¶ 35.)
A. ALJ Hearing
Petitioner appealed the January 2022 SNAP Notice, the February 2022 SNAP
Notice, and the LIHEAP Notice. The ALJ held a consolidated hearing on all three
matters in March 2022. The Department presented an Income Maintenance
Caseworker (Caseworker) and an Income Maintenance Supervisor (Supervisor) to
testify. Caseworker testified that in calculating Petitioner’s SNAP eligibility for
both the January 2022 SNAP Notice and February 2022 SNAP Notice, the
Department calculated Petitioner’s total household income using: (1) Son’s earned
income from his part-time position at Lightbox; (2) Petitioner’s SSP benefit;
(3) Son’s RSDI benefit after COLA; and (4) Petitioner’s SSI benefit after COLA.
The Department then subtracted a 20% earned income deduction and a standard
deduction. Further, the Department deducted shelter expenses and a utility
allowance. (Hearing Transcript (Hr’g Tr.) at 18-19, 35-39, 47-51.4) Caseworker and
Supervisor did not provide testimony as to the Department’s calculation of
2
BHA Docket No. 460352809-018.
3
BHA Docket No. 460352809-019.
4
The transcript of the March 30, 2022 hearing is item 9 of the Certified Record, beginning
on page 149 thereof.
3
Petitioner’s medical expenses for purposes of that deduction. (FOF ¶ 42.)
Caseworker stated that the only difference between the calculation of SNAP benefits
prompting the January 2022 SNAP Notice and the calculation of SNAP benefits
prompting the February 2022 SNAP Notice was the Department’s discovery of
Son’s updated earned income from his part-time position at Lightbox. (Hr’g Tr. at
51.) For the updated figure, Supervisor testified that the Department averaged Son’s
hours and wages from an Equifax report, which the Department determined to be
$560.00, and not $420.00 as previously projected. (Id. at 68-69.)
Caseworker also testified to the calculation of Petitioner’s eligibility under
LIHEAP, which included Petitioner’s SSI benefit, Petitioner’s SSP benefit, Son’s
updated earned income figure of $560.00 from his part-time position at Lightbox,
and Son’s RSDI benefit. (Id. at 63-64.) Caseworker further testified that the
Department did not consider Petitioner for categorical eligibility under LIHEAP
because LIHEAP eligibility is based on the number of persons in the household and
the household’s gross income. (Id. at 64-65.) Last, Supervisor testified that because
Petitioner indicated on her LIHEAP application that the Department may not use the
income on file for her SNAP benefits to determine LIHEAP eligibility, the
Department used their cross-matching system and Equifax to verify Petitioner’s
income instead. (Id. at 68-69.)
Petitioner argued that the Department should not have used Son’s earned
income from his part-time position at Lightbox as household income to determine
SNAP benefits and LIHEAP eligibility and instead should have considered it exempt
from household income as work-study income. (Id. at 27-32, 42-43, 59, 66-68.)
Petitioner also presented a witness, Son’s Manager, who testified that Son is paid
twice per month, his pay was steady through the months in question, he earned
4
$560.00 per month, and the source of his wages is privately funded. (Id. at 34, 52-
54, 60-63.) Petitioner further argued the February 2022 SNAP letter was untimely.
(Id. at 56-57.) Petitioner also contended that the Department did not take all her
medical expenses into account for a medical expense deduction, or expenses for a
dependent care deduction, although she acknowledged she was not sure if she
qualified for the latter. (Id. at 31, 59, 77.) Petitioner then argued that in determining
LIHEAP eligibility, the Department should not have used any income information
from her SNAP file because she indicated such on her LIHEAP application, and the
criteria is different for SNAP and LIHEAP eligibility. (Id. at 52, 55, 59, 61-62, 69-
71.) Last, Petitioner argued that the Department is to consider categorically eligible
households for LIHEAP. (Id. at 65-68.) Petitioner did not dispute the amount of
gross monthly unearned income that she and Son receive, the COLA, or the amount
of her shelter expenses or utilities. (Id. at 33, 44-45.)
At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ left the record open for the parties
to submit exhibits. The Department submitted a SNAP transcript from January 1,
2022, to April 13, 2022, showing SNAP payments paid to Petitioner during that time
period. (Exhibit (Ex.) C-1, C.R. at 35.) The Department also submitted SNAP
computations for the January 2022 and February 2022 Notices, which showed
Petitioner’s medical expenses did not meet the threshold requirement for a medical
expense deduction, a copy of Petitioner’s completed LIHEAP application, the
Department’s LIHEAP eligibility calculation for Petitioner, and the Equifax report
that updated Son’s earned income from his part-time position at Lightbox. (Exs. C-
2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-6, C.R. at 37-47.) Petitioner submitted verification for out-
of-pocket medical expenses for herself and Son, verification of the consistency of
Son’s income from his part-time position at Lightbox, Son’s status as a student, and
5
various excerpts of documents from the United States Department of Health and
Human Services’ Office of Community Services, which explains that states may
consider categorical eligibility for LIHEAP. (Exs. A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4, C.R. at
49-64.)
B. ALJ Adjudication
The ALJ issued an Order on April 22, 2022, sustaining Petitioner’s appeals
for the January 2022 SNAP Notice and the February 2022 SNAP Notice, and
denying Petitioner’s appeal for the LIHEAP Notice, which the BHA affirmed in its
April 25, 2022 Order. (C.R. at 66-67.)
In the accompanying Adjudication, for the appeals related to the January 2022
SNAP Notice and the February 2022 SNAP Notice, the ALJ first explained that the
Department is obligated to recalculate SNAP benefits when it becomes aware of
changes to a household’s income. (C.R. at 136.5) The ALJ also noted that Son’s
earned income was properly considered as household income because it did not
qualify as work-study income. (Id. at 136-37.)
For the January 2022 SNAP Notice, the ALJ noted the Department’s medical
expense calculation for Petitioner was “uncertain,” as the Department did not testify
“regarding the process [it] used to reach that amount[.]” (Id. at 137-39.) Therefore,
the ALJ concluded the appeal relating to Petitioner’s January 2022 SNAP Notice
must be sustained based on the Department’s lack of evidence regarding its medical
expense calculation. (Id. at 138-39.) However, the ALJ explained “that due to the
[COVID]-19 Public Health Emergency, all SNAP households are currently
receiving the maximum benefit for their household size, and the SNAP transcript
5
The Adjudication is not paginated. Therefore, we will cite to the corresponding page of
the Certified Record.
6
provided by the Department verifies [Petitioner]’s household is receiving all the
SNAP benefits [it is] eligible to receive.” (Id. at 138.) Thus, the ALJ concluded
there was no further relief that the ALJ could order. (Id.)
The ALJ explained that the Department sent the February 2022 SNAP Notice
“on February 3, 2022, proposing to reduce [Petitioner’s] February 2022 SNAP
benefits. The effective date of [this Notice wa]s February 1, 2022. . . . [Petitioner]
is entitled to a timely and adequate advance notice, and in this case, she did not
receive one.” (Id. at 139.) Thus, due to the untimely nature of the February 2022
SNAP Notice, the ALJ sustained Petitioner’s appeal as to it. (Id.) However, because
“[t]he Department issued supplemental SNAP benefit[s] to [Petitioner] on March 30,
2022, which increased her SNAP benefit to at least the maximum benefit for her
household size for March 2022,” the ALJ reasoned “there is no remedy the ALJ can
order.” (Id. at 139.)
With regard to Petitioner’s appeal of the LIHEAP Notice, the ALJ explained
that Pennsylvania considers households eligible for LIHEAP when their income
does not exceed 150% of the federal poverty level. (Id. at 141.) The ALJ calculated
Petitioner’s eligibility by annualizing Petitioner’s household income for December
2021, and came to the same conclusion as the Department that Petitioner’s
household income exceeded the threshold limit for eligibility. (Id. at 139-40.) The
ALJ also reiterated that Son’s earned income from his part-time position at Lightbox
was properly considered in Petitioner’s gross household income, and further stated
that Son’s earned income for December 2021 was actually $700.00 and not $560.00,
although the Department and ALJ used the lesser figure in their calculations. (Id. at
140.) Therefore, the ALJ denied Petitioner’s appeal of the LIHEAP Notice. (Id. at
141.)
7
Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Review with this Court and
simultaneously sought reconsideration, which the Secretary denied. (C.R. at 143-
45, 148.)
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal,6 Petitioner asserts the BHA erred in its calculation of her SNAP
benefits for a variety of reasons and in finding her household was ineligible for
LIHEAP. She also challenges the Secretary’s denial of reconsideration. We address
each issue, in turn.
A. SNAP
In relation to her SNAP benefits, Petitioner argues that Son’s income from his
part-time position at Lightbox should be considered work-study income, which is
exempt from household income, since Son is a student who lost his work-study
program due to the COVID-19 pandemic and this income was used for “school
expenses.” (Petitioner’s Brief (Br.) at 7.) Petitioner also contends the Department
should have only reduced her SNAP benefits by 5.9%, which was equivalent to the
COLA increase, instead of 12.5%. (Id. at 9.) Petitioner further contends that the
BHA should not have considered information relating to Son’s income obtained
during the LIHEAP application process to adjust Petitioner’s SNAP benefits in the
February 2022 SNAP Notice. (Id.) In addition, Petitioner argues the BHA erred by
using gross income rather than net income when it used income information obtained
6
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.” McBride v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 960 A.2d 203, 205 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008).
8
from the LIHEAP investigation to recalculate SNAP benefits. (Id. at 9-10.) Finally,
Petitioner asserts she did not receive the benefit of all the deductions to which she
was entitled. Petitioner seeks restoration of “under-calculated and withheld SNAP
benefits.” (Id. at 14.)7
The Department responds that Petitioner is not an aggrieved party regarding
her SNAP benefit appeals because BHA sustained her appeals and directed the
Department to restore Petitioner’s benefits to the amount she was receiving prior to
the reductions. (Department’s Br. at 11.) Accordingly, the Department argues
Petitioner lacks standing to challenge the BHA Order under Rule 501 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 501.8 (Id.)
As it is a threshold issue, we begin with Department’s contention the
Petitioner is not aggrieved by the Order, at least to the extent it involves her SNAP
benefits. “[A] person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter [they]
seek[] to challenge is not ‘aggrieved’ thereby[.]” William Penn Parking Garage,
Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269, 280 (Pa. 1975). “A prevailing party that
disagrees with the legal reasoning of an order or a court or agency . . . lacks standing
7
Petitioner also argues in her brief that the BHA erred in not granting retroactive SNAP
benefits for the months of September 2021 through December 2021 based on miscalculation of
income and that she had been assessed an overpayment, which had been recouped against her
monthly SNAP benefits “for several years.” (Petitioner’s Br. at 8, 10.) Petitioner also voiced these
arguments at the hearing before the ALJ, who advised Petitioner that SNAP benefits from
September 2021 through December 2021 were not appealed. (C.R. at 169-74, 206-07.) While
Petitioner contends she appealed his determination, (Petitioner’s Br. at 10), unfortunately, the
record does not contain any appeals for Petitioner’s SNAP benefits for those months or for any
overpayments resulting in recoupment. As such, we cannot conclude the BHA erred. See Pa.
State Corr. Officers Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 976 A.2d 1236, 1238 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)
(“Pa.R.A.P. 1551(a) provides that any issue not raised before a ‘government unit’ is considered
waived on appeal.”).
8
Rule 501 provides “[e]xcept where the right of appeal is enlarged by statute, any party
who is aggrieved by an appealable order . . . may appeal therefrom.” Pa.R.A.P. 501.
9
to appeal because it is not adversely affected by the order.” Maple St. A.M.E. Zion
Church v. City of Williamsport, 7 A.3d 319, 322 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Upon review of the SNAP transcript, under the law, Petitioner here is not
aggrieved; she was not adversely affected by the Order as it relates to the SNAP
benefits because no further relief can be directed as to them. In January 2022, which
was before the reduction was scheduled to occur, Petitioner received her full $445.00
in SNAP benefits -- $401.00 payable to her and $44.00 withheld for recoupment of
a prior overpayment.9 (C.R. at 35.) In addition to her regular SNAP benefits, on
January 28, 2022, Petitioner received the additional $95.00 SNAP Emergency
Allotment authorized as part of federal legislation related to the COVID-19
pandemic.10 (Id.) Although Petitioner was originally only issued $339.0011 on
February 11, 2022, $306.00 payable to her and $33.00 withheld for recoupment, on
February 26, 2022, Petitioner received an additional $120.00 “SNAP Emergency
Allotment[] due to COVID-19,” which brought her monthly total up to $459.00,
which was the maximum benefit amount for a two-person household at that time.
(Id.; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Maximum Monthly Allotments,
available at https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/2022-
SNAP-COLA-%20Maximum-Allotments.pdf#page=2 (last visited Nov. 29, 2023).)
9
See n.7, supra.
10
States could apply to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for
supplemental emergency allotments. Pennsylvania initially applied on March 30, 2020, and was
approved April 2, 2020. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Pennsylvania: COVID-19 Waivers
& Flexibilities, available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/disaster/pandemic/covid-19/pennsylvania
(last visited Nov. 29, 2023). It applied and was approved for extensions through February 2023.
Id. Through the emergency allotments, households received either $95.00 per month or the
difference between what they normally received and the maximum benefit amount for a household
of that size, whichever was greater. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Changes to SNAP Benefit
Amounts – 2023, Questions & Answers, available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/changes-
2023-benefit-amounts (last visited Nov. 29, 2023).
11
This reflects the amount of the February 2022 SNAP Notice.
10
On March 30, 2022, Petitioner was issued $95.00 in supplemental benefits for the
month of February. (C.R. at 35.) Thus, for the month of February 2022, Petitioner
received the maximum allotment for a two-person household, and the supplemental
payment of $95.00, albeit belatedly, and no further relief can be afforded.
March 2022 presents a similar situation. On March 14, 2022, Petitioner
received $306.00 payable to her plus $33.00 withheld for recoupment, for a total of
$339.00. (Id.) On March 29, 2022, Petitioner received an additional $120.00
“SNAP Emergency Allotment due to COVID-19,” bringing her monthly total up to
the maximum monthly allotment of $459.00 for a two-person household. (Id.) One
day later, she was issued $95.00 in supplemental benefits for the month of March.
(Id.) Therefore, identical to February 2022, Petitioner received $459.00, the
maximum allotment for a two-person household, and the $95.00 supplemental
payment, so no further relief can be granted.
Furthermore, the SNAP transcript reveals that on April 13, 2022, Petitioner’s
regular monthly benefit amount returned to $445.00, of which $410.00 was paid to
her and $44.00 was withheld for recoupment. (Id.) This reflects the same amount
Petitioner was receiving in January 2022, before the Notices were issued. (Id.)
Thus, the SNAP benefits that Petitioner seeks to have restored in this appeal were
restored and she is not aggrieved. Accordingly, the instant matter is unlike Stern v.
Department of Public Welfare, 49 A.3d 26, 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), in which the
Court rejected the Department’s argument that the petitioner there lacked standing
after the BHA sustained the petitioner’s appeal because the petitioner sought
retroactive benefits, which were not part of the relief granted. Id. Because Petitioner
received all the relief she requested as to the SNAP benefits, we must dismiss her
appeal as to those determinations only.
11
B. LIHEAP
Petitioner also challenges the denial of her appeal of the LIHEAP Notice.
Regarding income, Petitioner makes the same arguments above relating to her
contention that Son’s income should be excluded from her gross household income
as work-study income. (Petitioner’s Br. at 11-12.) She also argues that Son’s
income was not $700.00 in December 2021, as found by the Department. (Id. at 12
(citing FOF ¶ 28).) Petitioner further contends that income is irrelevant because her
household should be considered categorically eligible for LIHEAP benefits. (Id. at
13-14.)
The Department responds that Son’s income was properly considered as
earned income, as it does not qualify as work-study income under 55 Pa. Code §
601.82. (Department’s Br. at 14.) The Department further contends that Petitioner
did not provide testimony or other evidence that Son’s earned income was used for
college expenses. (Id. at 15.) Last, the Department argues Petitioner’s LIHEAP
application was properly denied because she did not meet the eligibility criteria, and
Pennsylvania elected not to consider categorical eligibility for LIHEAP. (Id. at 13-
14, 16.)
At the hearing, Petitioner raised the same arguments as she raises now. As
the ALJ explained:
In the Pennsylvania Code, the prescribed computations [to determine
LIHEAP eligibility] are either [90] days prior to the date of application,
or the [12] months prior, but the 2022 LIHEAP State Plan, which is
determinate in this case, modified the annualized computation to
include only the month before the month of application. In this case,
the Department received [Petitioner]’s LIHEAP application for the
2021-2022 program year on January 4, 2022. [Petitioner] indicated on
her application that, although she was receiving SNAP benefits, she did
not want the Department to use the income [it] had on file for her
household, so [it] did not. The Department utilized [its] automated
sources to obtain [Petitioner]’s SSI amount . . . and [Son]’s RSDI
12
amount. . . . Adding those two undisputed amounts together and
multiplying them by [12] results in an annualized figure[ that] . . . is []
less than the regulatory two-person LIHEAP income limit.
Also using [its] automated sources, the Department verified [Son]’s
earned income from [his part-time position] . . . although [Petitioner]
did not list it on her LIHEAP application. . . . In this case, the
Department used $560.00 per month in gross earned income for [Son],
which [it] determined based on what [it] termed his “usual” income.
[Son]’s actual gross earned income earned from [his part-time position]
for December 2021 was $700.00. . . .
Regulations require the Department to complete an annual income
computation for LIHEAP purposes if an applicant household requests
it. It is reasonable to assume that when a household is found ineligible
based on the annualization of household income from the month prior
to the month of application, the Department would complete an annual
computation in an effort to find the household eligible for LIHEAP. In
this case, the Department did not testify regarding the completion of an
annual computation for [Petitioner]. Because [Petitioner] applied for
the LIHEAP in January 2022, the [12]-month period prior to the month
of application would be . . . from January 2021 through December 2021.
. . . Using only the 2021 SSI and RSDI amounts [Petitioner] wrote on
her application for herself and [Son] equates, as stated above, to an
annual income amount . . . [that is] less than the . . . two-person LIHEAP
income limit. Although the hearing record does not contain verification
of [Son]’s gross earned income prior to October 15, 2021. . . his gross
earned income from October 15, 2021, through December 31, 2021, the
end of the actual annual income calculation period for LIHEAP, is
$1,960.00. . . . [T]he annual income figure for [Petitioner]’s LIHEAP
household. . . exceed[ed] the [] limit.
. . . . At the hearing, [Petitioner] contended her household should be
considered categorically eligible for LIHEAP purposes because [it]
receive[s] SNAP benefits[,] and she receives SSI. As an exhibit,
[Petitioner] provided part of the Low[]Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981[, 42 U.S.C. §§ 8621-8630]. . . . [Petitioner]
highlighted [S]ection [8624(b)(2)](A)(ii) and (A)(iii), which state
LIHEAP payments can be made . . . to households where one or more
individuals are receiving SSI or food stamps. [Petitioner] did not
include Subsection [](b)(2)(B), which permits states to make payments
only to households with incomes which do not exceed the greater of an
amount equal to 150% of the poverty level for each State or an amount
13
equal to 60% of the State median income. . . . Between Subsection A
and Subsection B of Section [8624] is the word “or,” which allows the
states the choice between making payments to households containing
individuals who receive SSI or SNAP benefits, or limiting LIHEAP
eligibility to households whose countable income falls at or below the
150% limit. Review of the 2022 State Plan indicates Pennsylvania
opted to adopt the 150% income limit rather than the provision granting
categorical eligibility for SSI and SNAP recipients. [55 Pa. Code
§ 601.31(1).] LIHEAP funding comes from the federal government to
the states in the form of block grants, which allows Pennsylvania, as
the grantee, to make choices regarding LIHEAP eligibility. In this case,
[Petitioner]’s countable household income for LIHEAP purposes
exceeds the 150% threshold for the 2021-2022 program year, and the
Department’s decision to deny her LIHEAP application is correct.
(C.R. at 139-41.) The ALJ’s explanation and decision regarding Petitioner’s
LIHEAP application is correct.
The Department also properly considered Son’s earned income from his part-
time position as gross household income, as it does not qualify for the exemption
under Section 601.84 of the Department’s regulations. “Gross income” is defined
in Section 601.82 of the Department’s regulations as “the total earned and nonearned
income of the household,” including, pertinent here, “[e]mploye earnings[, which]
are money, including wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions and tips, before taxes
or other deductions, that a person receives for providing services on behalf of an
employer.” 55 Pa. Code § 601.82. Section 601.84 of the Department’s regulations
set forth various income exclusions. 55 Pa. Code § 601.84. Relevant here is the first
exclusion, which provides “[t]he portion of an educational loan, grant or scholarship
to an undergraduate student actually spent for tuition, books and other required
educational fees, and the amount of income from other sources used to pay out-of-
pocket expenses for books and other required educational fees” will not be
14
considered in the gross yearly income calculation for LIHEAP purposes. 55 Pa.
Code § 601.84(1).
First, Petitioner did not submit evidence showing Son’s income was used for
college expenses, like books. Moreover, Section 601.84 requires the funds to be
from “an educational loan, grant, or scholarship[,]” 55 Pa. Code § 601.84(1), and
Son’s income was privately funded, (FOF at 6). There is no record evidence
showing Son’s privately funded income was a loan, grant, or scholarship that was
spent on books or other educational fees. Thus, under the plain language of the
regulations, even accepting Petitioner’s arguments as true, the exemption would not
apply under these circumstances.
The Department further did not err in stating that Son earned $700.00 in
December 2021 because there was substantial evidence in the record showing Son’s
income from the Department’s Equifax report. Substantial evidence is evidence that
“a reasonable mind can accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Ehrhart v. Dep’t
of Pub. Welfare, 632 A.2d 5, 7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). The Equifax report shows that
Son’s income on December 15, 2021, was $280.00, and on December 31, 2021, was
$420.00. (Ex. C-6.) Even so, the Department did not use this figure of $700.00 in
their calculation of Petitioner’s LIHEAP eligibility; instead, the Department used
the lesser $560.00, Ex. C-5, which Petitioner acknowledged was Son’s monthly
earned income from his part-time internship, Petitioner’s Br. at 12. Therefore, the
Department correctly included Son’s income in [its] LIHEAP eligibility calculation
and, based on our review of Department’s calculations, properly found that
Petitioner’s household did not qualify. Accordingly, we must affirm that
determination.
15
C. Reconsideration
Petitioner challenges the Secretary’s denial of reconsideration.12 The
Department contends that Petitioner failed “to provide any facts or legal support for
her claim that the Secretary abused her discretion” in denying Petitioner’s petition
for reconsideration. (Department’s Br. at 17.) Petitioner responds that the Secretary
“rubber-stamp[ed]” the BHA’s Order and failed to find that her SNAP benefits were
undercalculated. (Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 6-7.) Additionally, in relation to the
LIHEAP appeal, Petitioner asserts the Secretary did not rectify the BHA’s error in
calculating Petitioner’s household income and failed to find her household
categorically eligible. (Id. at 4-5.)
In reviewing a Reconsideration Order, our scope of review is limited to
determining whether there was an abuse of discretion in denying the request for
reconsideration. K.G. v. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 187 A.3d 276, 279 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018). “An abuse of discretion will only be found where the evidence shows there
was fraud, bad faith, capricious action[,] or abuse of power.” Id.
Petitioner does not address how the Secretary abused her discretion aside from
reasserting the same arguments about the undercalculation of SNAP benefits and her
LIHEAP eligibility. Petitioner did not show fraud, bad faith, capricious action, or
abuse of power. Because we must find that the Department issued all SNAP benefits
to Petitioner for which a two-person household was eligible and correctly
12
Petitioner filed a pro se communication with this Court on May 10, 2022, stating her
intent to appeal the BHA’s Order, which preserved her appeal date as May 10, 2022. On July 12,
2022, the Prothonotary’s Office sent Petitioner a notice of what steps she needed to complete to
perfect her appeal. Pursuant to that notice, Petitioner filed an ancillary petition for review on
August 8, 2022, to which she attached the Secretary’s subsequently issued order denying
reconsideration.
16
determined that Petitioner is not eligible for LIHEAP benefits, the Secretary did not
commit an abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to dismiss Petitioner’s appeal
as it relates to the SNAP determinations, affirm the BHA’s Order as it relates to her
LIHEAP benefits, and cannot disturb the Secretary’s denial of reconsideration.
__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
17
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elaine Mickman, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 1039 C.D. 2022
:
Department of Human Services, :
Respondent :
ORDER
NOW, November 30, 2023, the Petition for Review (Petition) filed by Elaine
Mickman (Petitioner) seeking review of the April 25, 2022 Final Administrative
Action Order (Order) of the Department of Human Services’ Bureau of Hearings
and Appeals (BHA), as to BHA Docket No. 460352809-017 and BHA Docket No.
460352809-018, is DISMISSED as Petitioner is not aggrieved and therefore lacks
standing. The Order as it relates to BHA Docket No. 460352809-019 is
AFFIRMED. The June 1, 2022 Order denying reconsideration is AFFIRMED.
__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge