Social-services recipients entitled to injunctive relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Family and Social Services Administration’s adverse action notices pertaining to public benefits programs that don’t name specific missing eligibility documents don’t comport with the requirement of procedural due process, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana sued the FSSA on behalf of people who have applied for or receive public benefits to enjoin the state agency from issuing adverse action notices regarding Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If an applicant was denied, he would receive a generic notice alleging failure to cooperate but the notice didn’t specify what verification document was missing. The trial court certified specific classes of people who could sue.

Marion Superior Court found FSSA procedures as a whole satisfied procedural due process requirements and FSSA was entitled to summary judgment on that issue. It also issued a declaratory judgment and injunction against FSSA because the agency had, in violation of federal law governing SNAP, utilized a “failure to cooperate” standard as opposed to a “refusal to cooperate” standard. The trial court also ruled that FSSA had violated class member Sheila Perdue’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act when FSSA automatically scheduled her for a phone interview with a caseworker despite her known hearing impairment and denied her benefits for “failure to cooperate.”
In Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Anne W. Murphy, et al., No. 49A02-1003-PL-250, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling that the adverse action procedures as a whole satisfied procedural due process rights. FSSA’s procedures place a great burden upon the disadvantaged person to show on appeal that each and every document was timely provided, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. He also noted the appellate court couldn’t find that making the FSSA specify the reason for its denial would place a great burden on the agency.

“We are persuaded by the Recipients’ argument that they may not effectively exercise a right to be heard on appeal absent sufficient information to adequately prepare for and pursue the appeal. Mindful that an individual receiving an FSSA adverse action notice likely has a physical, mental, or economic disadvantage (or combination thereof), it is unreasonable to expect that the recipient can act to protect his or her interests without specific information,” wrote the judge.

In addition to reversing summary judgment for FSSA on this issue, the judges also upheld the lower court’s grant of declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding SNAP and the finding that Perdue’s rights were violated. The agency didn’t demonstrate that the injunction was overbroad or a genuine issue of material fact existed precluding summary judgment. In addition, FSSA even conceded at oral argument that it wasn’t demonstrably harmed by the injunctive orders that amounted to orders to follow existing law, wrote the judge.


  • GOP and that Man Mitch at it again
    This is a typical example of how Mitch in his "reform" minded mode to "fix" government is nothing but a ruse to deny benefits for those in need. You can't convince anyone that the vagueness of the "form" letter was not a GOP way of denying benefits based upon their "concieved" notion of complying with the law. They knew that a person would have no idea what was missing, and if they tried to find out, they would get put on hold for ever trying to find someone who would not have any answers.

    Again the GOP provides the worse government that special interests can buy. Time to get rid of the pary of NO and their mean spirited self center, selfish agenda.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?