Petition of Walker, 92-764
| Decision Date | 16 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-764,92-764 |
| Citation | 138 N.H. 471,641 A.2d 1021 |
| Parties | Petition of Gloria WALKER (New Hampshire Division of Human Services). |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
New Hampshire Legal Assistance, Portsmouth (Victoria Pulos, on the brief and orally), for Gloria Walker.
Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (Lucy C. Hodder, on the brief and orally), for State.
The petitioner, Gloria Walker, seeks a writ of certiorari to the division of human services (division) for review of the denial of her application for benefits under Aid to Families with Dependent Children--Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) program. Walker challenges the division's reliance on decisions of the department of employment security (DES) denying unemployment compensation to her children's father as the basis for denying the family AFDC-UP benefits. We vacate the division's decision and remand for an independent determination by the division of the family's eligibility for AFDC-UP benefits.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is a cooperative financial assistance program for needy families established by federal law and administered by the States through approved plans. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 601, 602, 607 (1991 & Supp.1993). AFDC-UP, which is part of the AFDC program, provides aid to children who are needy as a result of the unemployment of their family's principal earner. 42 U.S.C.A. § 607 (1991). The federal regulations implementing AFDC-UP allow States to choose a definition of unemployment from those provided. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 429, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 2407-08, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977); 45 C.F.R. § 233.101(a)(1)(ii) (1992).
New Hampshire amended its AFDC statute in 1990 to include children who are needy due to the unemployment of a parent who is the principal wage earner. RSA 167:6, V (Supp.1993). The division's administrative rule pertaining to AFDC-UP limits the definition of unemployed parent to one who is not or would not be "by reason of conduct or circumstances disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under New Hampshire law." N.H.Admin.Rules, He-W 628.05(b). In addition, the division's policy manual directs that:
"When [DES] has disqualified the [principal wage earner] from receiving [unemployment compensation] benefits for the following reason(s), the deprivation due to unemployment requirement is not met:
. . . . .
2. Being discharged for misconduct associated with one's work...."
N.H.Div.Human Services, Public Assistance Policy Manual, policy 2054.2 (1991) (PAPM). Therefore, to be eligible for AFDC-UP benefits, an applicant first must file for and receive unemployment compensation benefits, unless the applicant is not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits for specified reasons not applicable in this case. See id. at policy 2054.7; N.H.Admin.Rules, He-W 628.05(b). If an applicant is covered by a specified exception to the DES determination requirement, the division conducts its own hearing and makes an independent determination of the applicant's eligibility for AFDC-UP benefits. PAPM, supra, policy 2054.2(c).
In the present case, Gloria Walker and Robert Phillips are the parents of four minor children. After Phillips was discharged from his job at Cumberland Farms and denied unemployment benefits by DES, Walker applied for financial assistance for their family through the AFDC-UP program. The division denied the application based on the DES determination that Phillips was ineligible for unemployment compensation because he was discharged due to his misconduct at work. Phillips' appeal of the DES decision was unsuccessful. Walker reapplied for AFDC-UP benefits several months later and was again denied by the division. She appealed, challenging the division's reliance on the DES denial of unemployment compensation, but, following a hearing, the division issued a fair hearings decision affirming the denial of her AFDC-UP application.
The only judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the division is by petition for a writ of certiorari. Wentworth-Douglass Hosp. v. N.H. Dept. of Health & Welfare, 131 N.H. 364, 366, 553 A.2d 311, 312 (1988). Our review of an administrative agency's decision on a petition for certiorari is limited to ascertaining whether the "agency has acted illegally in respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law ... or has abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously." Petition of Pelletier, 125 N.H. 565, 569, 484 A.2d 1119, 1121 (1984) (quotations and citation omitted). In her petition for certiorari, Walker contends that the division violated RSA 282-A:180 (Supp.1993) by admitting into evidence and relying on DES decisions denying Phillips eligibility for unemployment compensation to determine the family's ineligibility for AFDC-UP benefits. RSA 282-A:180 provides as follows:
"Decisions rendered under this chapter shall not be admissible in any court or in administrative or other proceedings, not under or pursuant to this chapter, for the purpose of barring such court or proceeding from making independent findings of fact and rulings of law under the doctrine of collateral estoppel."
The division responds that its actions are authorized by federal law and do not conflict with RSA 282-A:180.
First, there is no question that federal law allows New Hampshire to choose the definition of unemployment that it has adopted. See Batterton, 432 U.S. at 429, 97 S.Ct. at 2407-08; 45 C.F.R. § 233.101(a)(1)(ii). "The States were given broad power to define 'unemployment' for purposes of the [AFDC-UP] program and to determine the relationship of this new program to existing state unemployment compensation plans." Batterton, 432 U.S. at 419, 97 S.Ct. at 2402. In considering potential conflict between federal AFDC provisions and state law, courts should allow federal-state cooperation, rather than impose federal preemption, unless the conflict is substantive and violates a specific provision of the federal AFDC law. See New York Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 423 n. 29, 93 S.Ct. 2507, 2518 n. 29, 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973); see also In re Alien Children Ed. Litigation, 501 F.Supp. 544, 588 (S.D.Texas 1980). Neither federal regulation pertaining to AFDC-UP nor the New Hampshire AFDC-UP statute, RSA 167:6, V, requires that the division use DES decisions to determine eligibility for AFDC-UP, instead of determining eligibility independently, as the division does when no DES decision is available. Because the division's policy to rely on DES decisions is not mandated by federal or State law, we find no conflict between RSA 282-A:180, as interpreted by the petitioner, and AFDC-UP legislation.
We next address whether the division's use of DES decisions to determine eligibility for AFDC-UP benefits violates RSA 282...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kilton
...judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the [department] is by petition for a writ of certiorari." Petition of Walker, 138 N.H. 471, 473, 641 A.2d 1021 (1994). Review on certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, usually available only in the absence of a right to appeal, and only......
-
In re Kilton
...judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the [department] is by petition for a writ of certiorari." Petition of Walker, 138 N.H. 471, 473, 641 A.2d 1021 (1994). Review on certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, usually available only in the absence of a right to appeal, and only......
-
Caouette v. Officemax, Inc.
...facts and rulings of law under the doctrine of collateral estoppel." N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. ("RSA") § 282-A:180; see also In re Walker, 138 N.H. 471, 475, 641 A.2d 1021 (1994) ("the statute does not permit a non-DES proceeding to admit DES decisions into evidence in lieu of making an independen......
-
State v. Harnum
...will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include." Petition of Walker, 138 N.H. 471, 474, 641 A.2d 1021, 1024 (1994). RSA 651–A:23 clearly and unambiguously mandates that defendants shall receive pretrial sentencing credit for time spe......