ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT