Yvette Perry v. State of La., Department of Children & Family Services

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-857

YVETTE PERRY
VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES, ET AL.

OR AR RK

APPEAL FROM THE
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 88,242, DIV. A
HONORABLE DESIREE D. DYESS, DISTRICT JUDGE

ae oe ok ok ok ok obo

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

afk fk OK a KK

oe, Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and David E. Chatelain,

ogo

AFFIRMED.

' Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

Celia M. Williams-Alexander
Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services
Bureau of General Counsel
627 North Fourth Street, Fourth Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services

Yvette Perry
In Proper Person
941 Lucille St.
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 332-4450

PRO SE

GREMILLION, Judge.

The plaintiff, Yvette Perry, appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating
her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.? For the
following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Perry’s SNAP benefits were terminated by the Louisiana Department of
Children and Family Services (DCFS) for three months because she failed to
reactivate her Helping Individuals Reach Employment (HIRE) account online.
Following a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Perry failed to
comply with DCFS’s work registration requirements by June 15, 2015, and
affirmed DCFS’s closure of her SNAP case. Perry petitioned for judicial review in
January 2016. Following a May 2016 hearing, the trial court affirmed the ALJ’s
decision. Perry now appeals.

ASSIGMENTS OF ERROR

Perry argues the trial court:

1. erred as a matter of law in failing to apply the provisions of La.R.S.

49:964(G)(1) regarding DCFS failure to timely serve adverse

notice in compliance to federal regulations,

2, erred as a matter of law because the untimely fair hearing was over
ninety (90) days late and failed to conform to federal regulations.

3. erred in []failing to address issues of due process violations and
4. erred by failing to reverse the administrative law judge’s decision
on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary and an unwarranted

exercise of discretion.

5. erred by failing to reinstate SNAP benefits and award damages for
civil rights violations.

? SNAP benefits are often referred to as “food stamps.”

DISCUSSION
When reviewing an administrative final decision, the district court functions
as an appellate court and reviews the administrative decisions according to La.R.S.
49:964, which regulates the review of administrative procedure. Louisiana
Revised Statutes 49:964(G) provides that the district court may reverse or modify -
the administrative agency’s findings only if the appellant’s rights:

have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as
determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the
court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a
preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the
record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application
of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the
credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the
witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be
given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.

Thus, the district court determines if substantial rights of the appellant have
been prejudiced in one of the above described ways. The ALJ’s findings of fact
are due deference by the trial court. CHL Enters., LLC v. State, Dep’t of Revenue,
09-487 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/09), 23 So.3d 1000, writ denied, 09-2613 (La.
2/12/10), 27 So.3d 848. We review the district court’s findings of fact using the

manifest error standard of review. /d. Thus, if reasonable support in the record

exists for the findings, we will not reverse the trial court’s ruling unless it is clearly
wrong. /d.; Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).

The ALJ found that DCFS proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
its closure of Perry’s SNAP case was proper. The ALJ made the following

findings of fact:

Yvette P. Perry submitted a redetermination application for
SNAP benefits April 12, 2015. Ms. Perry was interviewed April 22,
2015, classified as a mandatory work eligible participant and required
to register for work with LWC. The Department sent Ms. Perry a
Client Contact Letter April 23, 2015, requesting additional
verification. A SNAP 4RW Notice was mailed to Ms. Perry May 18,
2015, advising her to complete her work registration with LWC by
May 29, 2015.

On June 1, 2015, the Department’s analyst checked the LWC
HIRE screen which showed Ms. Perry last exited her HIRE account
December 26, 2008. Ms. Perry’s SNAP case was placed in Active
Closure status and adverse notice was mailed to her June 2, 2015.
The adverse notice advised Ms. Perry that the sanction would be
removed if she reactivated her HIRE account by June 15, 2015. The
Department's analyst checked the LWC HIRE screen June 15" and
16"; the LWC HIRE screens continued to show Ms. Perry last exited
her HIRE account December 26, 2008. Ms. Perry did not comply by
the June 15" deadline and her SNAP case closed. Ms. Perry activated
her HIRE account June 19, 2015.

(Footnotes omitted).

The district court adopted the findings of the ALJ and further stated:

Perry was given proper notice to register with the Louisiana

Workforce Commission (LWC) and create or reactivate a HIRE

account by May 31, 2015. No proof was presented that Yvette P.

Perry registered with LWC to reactive[ate] her HIRE account timely.

Her account was not reactivated until June 19, 2015.

The following testimony was adduced at the November 2015 telephone
hearing before the ALJ.

Sharita Thibodeaux, DCFS worker, testified that Perry, as a single,

unemployed, and not disabled person, was required to reactivate her HIRE account

online via the Louisiana Workforce Commission (LWC) website. Thibodeaux said
that she explained the registration requirement to Perry at the time of her April 22,
2015 redetermination interview to continue her benefits. Thibodeaux further said
that an “18-C Notice” (client contact letter) was mailed to Perry on April 23, 2015,
which indicated that, by May 31, 2015, she needed to create a HIRE account or
reactivate it by conducting a job search; otherwise her case would be sanctioned,
and she would not receive her benefits for three months. Another document
entitled a “SNAP 4RW” (Work Registration Requirement), was mailed to Perry on
May 18, 2015, giving detailed information on how to login to the LWC website
and create or reactivate a HIRE account. It further set forth the penalty of
termination of benefits for three months if Perry failed to register by May 29, 2015.

Thibodeaux testified that she checked the LWC website on June 1, 2015,
noting that Perry’s last login to the website was December 26, 2008. Thibodeaux
then discussed various forms used by DCFS, which were submitted into evidence.
DCFS placed her case in active closure status and a “13-A Notice” (notice of
adverse action) was created on June 1, 2015, and mailed June 2, 2015, according to
Thibodeaux. This notice gave Perry another chance to activate her account by
June 15, 2015, simply by searching for a job on the website and calling DCFS to
let them know she had completed this action. The form clearly states that Perry’s
SNAP case will be closed on June 15, 2015, if she does not login into the LWC
website and reactivate her HIRE account.

Thibodeaux testified that she again checked the LWC website on June 15,
2015, which still revealed a last login date by Perry of December 26, 2008.

Thibodeaux then called Perry, but there was no answer. Thibodeaux’s records

indicate that Perry called the call center on June 15, 2015. Thibodeaux returned
the call on June 16, 2015, but again there was no answer.

On June 17, 2015, Thibodeaux manually mailed an “18-C Notice” along
with the screen printouts from the LWC website for the dates of June 1, June 15,
and June 16, 2015. Perry called the call center on June 19, 2015, Thibodeaux
returned the call the same day at which time Perry requested a fair hearing.
Thibodeaux said that Perry submitted a fair hearing request on June 29, 2015.

Perry testified that she registered on May 30, 2015, but that she had no proof
of that. She further stated that the June 2, 2015 letter notifying her of the closure
date was not mailed until June 10, 2015, and that it was not received by her until
June 13, 2015, giving her only one business day to respond. Perry claimed “I have
ten days to respond to an adverse letter, so my rights were taken from me,” relying
on the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Subchapter C, part 273.15. Perry
submitted photographs of an envelope with a postmark of June 10, 2016.

Perry was questioned by Marilyn Martin, a supervisor at DCFS, regarding
her claim that she logged in on May 30, 2015. Perry said that she “knew from the
day that you did my reconsideration hearing [April 2015] on the phone that I had to
sign up for work.”

Martin testified that the envelope submitted into evidence by Perry was not
the type of envelope used by DCFS and that the notices are automatically
generated and mailed by the mail room the day after they are completed by the
workers in the computer system. Thibodeaux said that the only letter she
personally mailed was the one with the screen printouts from June 1, 15, and 16,
2015. Martin further testified that all mail sent from the office used 48 cents

postage rather than the 39 cents shown on the envelope submitted into evidence by

Perry. She further said that DCFS does not use two-window envelopes like the
type submitted by Perry; she said that the return address of DCFS is pre-printed,
and the window is only used for the client’s name. Martin further testified that
Perry’s three-month sanction ended in September 2015, at which time Perry could
reapply for benefits, but she declined. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ
scheduled another hearing to allow the parties to submit additional evidence. The
follow-up telephone hearing occurred on December 2, 2015; however, no new
issues were raised.

On May 2, 2016, the trial court’s hearing elicited testimony reiterating what
had already been stated. Perry, admitting that she knew she had to register by May
30, 2015, again argued that she was not timely notified that she was to register by
June 15, 2015. Perry stated:

What I do disagree with is the fact that the letter they’d sent me
telling me about the adverse letter that my case was going to be closed

was not in compliance with Title 7, under 273, which affords me 10

days from the mailing date to get that letter. They mailed the letter

out on the 10". And my closing date was, was the 15". It came over

the weekend, on the 13". So, I had 2 days, and not 10 days as federal

statute affords me the opportunity to have. I did not have those 10

days. So, that’s really what this case really came down to.

Perry further stated:

So, I don’t argue .. . Judge, I don’t disagree with they had ...

they had a right to close my case. But, they didn’t do it according to

federal guidelines. As they say, I didn’t do it according to federal

guidelines with signing up for work. They did not do it according to
federal guidelines in closing my uh ... my case.

The district court reviewed the ALJ’s proceedings and found Perry failed to
meet the May 30, 2015 deadline to register with HIRE in order to continue

receiving her SNAP benefits. Our review of the record supports this finding.

Perry relies on 7 C.F.R. §.273.13 which states:

the notice of adverse action shall be considered timely if the advance

notice period conforms to that period of time defined by the State

agency as an adequate notice . . . provided that the period includes at

least 10 days from the date the notice mailed to the date upon which

the action becomes effective.

Perry’s SNAP benefits were scheduled to cease on May 30, 2015, pursuant
to notice sent on April 23, 2015, but she was given extra time by DCFS. There is
no dispute that Perry had notice in April that she had to reactive her HIRE account
on the LWC website. Accordingly, Perry admitted that she knew she was required
to register and failed to do so by the deadline of May 30, 2015. We are unable to
determine why Perry did not login to a website and reactivate her account when it
is clear she spent a significant amount of time drafting legal documents and
appellate briefs. DCFS’s extremely de minimus requirement that one login to a
website in order to keep receiving benefits is the most trivial of burdens placed on
SNAP recipients.

Although Perry focuses on the June 15, 2015 deadline and steadfastly argues
that she only received notice on June 13, 2015, we find that fact immaterial. It is
undisputed that Perry knew she had to register by May 30, 2015, received notice of
said fact, and failed to do so. The June 15, 2015 deadline was merely a final
gratuitous extension by DCFS to give Perry another chance to log in to the website
and reactivate her account. Accordingly, there is no manifest error in either the
ALJ’s finding or the district court’s finding that DCFS met its burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence that Perry’s SNAP benefits were properly
terminated.

Perry’s second prong of her argument relies on the untimely scheduling of

her appeal of DCFS’s termination of her benefits. Perry requested the hearing on

June 24, 2015, and the hearing was held on November 12, 2015.7 Perry’s
argument appears to be that the delay in the scheduling should retroactively waive
her failure to timely register/login to her HIRE account. We find this argument
mooted by our above finding. Further, the trial court found Perry’s rights were not
prejudiced by the delay, and we find Perry’s arguments in this regard without merit.
CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court finding that the plaintiff-appellant, Yvette
Perry’s, SNAP benefits were properly terminated by the defendant-appellee, the
State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services, is affirmed. All

costs of this appeal are assessed to Yvette Perry.

AFFIRMED.

3-7 C.F.R. § 273.15(1) is part of the chapter regulating the food stamp distribution program and
requires that state agencies provide a fair hearing within sixty days of the request for a hearing.