Thanks to the commitment and hard work of staff, significant improvements have been made; however, more work must be done in order to satisfy the expectations of the court and to gain eventual release from this law suit. 

This memo is to alert staff to areas requiring special attention as identified by recent case reviews and to reiterate/clarify current policy and procedures relating to the administrative hearing process. 

Areas Requiring Special Attention/Necessary Action:

IM-87's (Application for State Hearing) are not being received by the DLS' Administrative Hearings Unit (AHU) within 24 hours of the request as current policy states.

IM-87's are to be completed and faxed to the AHU within 24 hours of the request by the claimant.  If the AHU is located within your office, deliver the IM-87 according to the same 24-hour rule.

Note:  Do not delay sending the IM-87 due to the absence of the supervisor.  County administrators are to designate someone in the office to sign IM-87's in the absence of a supervisor.

According to policy, hearing decisions are to be implemented "Immediately" upon receipt of the decision and order from the DLS or E-mail notification from the division.  County Administrators should continue to ensure the immediate implementation of hearing decisions. 

Effective immediately, counties/areas will be notified in writing by Central Office if an administrative hearing exceeds the 60-day time frame.  Counties will be expected to identify the reason(s) for the delay in implementation.

Note:  When Central Office receives the unsigned hearing decision from DLS and the order indicates the agency is "reversed", central office immediately sends an E-mail to the affected county providing information concerning the decision.  This is meant to provide notice to the county prior to receiving the "signed" decision so the implementation process can begin as soon as possible.

In some instances had a proper review been completed by the supervisor the hearing could have been avoided.  When appropriate the agency should withdraw it's action. This can happen during the supervisory review.  If new information is brought to light after the hearing request is made which affects the decision, the agency should withdraw the action. In most cases, withdrawing the action will lead to the claimant withdrawing from the hearing.

Example:  The agency rejects a Food Stamp application for excessive income after the IM-12 (Employment Verification Form) revealed the client's wages to be 40 hours per week @ $6.50 per hour.  Prior to the hearing the client provides wage stubs for the previous 6 weeks showing they worked an average of 20 hours per week @ $6.50 per hour.  After running a new budget using the wage verification provided by the client the client is found eligible on the basis of income.  Based on this information the agency withdraws its action. 

•  Review this memorandum with appropriate staff;

• Complete and return IM-87's to the AHU within 24 hours of the request by the claimant;

 
• Supervisors should review all cases prior to the hearing to determine if the agency's action was appropriate;

 
• If warranted the agency should withdraw its action or proposed action;

 
• Counties should respond immediately to the implementation of hearing decisions.