Search the Shriver Center
Entire Site Poverty Law Library Clearinghouse Review

The Third Circuit has affirmed the district court's order requiring the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to provide detailed explanations concerning calculations and requirements for federally funded welfare programs in prehearing notices in compliance with federal regulations and, further, to comply with federal regulations governing the use of adverse statements of absent witnesses in administrative hearings to determine eligibility for welfare benefits. Plaintiff class, consisting of recipients of or applicants for federally funded public assistance, was awarded partial summary judgment and declaratory and injunctive relief in their challenge to practices of DHSS in conducting administrative hearings that were held by the district court to violate federal regulations for the AFDC, food stamp, and Medicaid programs, as well as due process rights. Only two of these issues were appealed by DHSS, and on both issues the Third Circuit has affirmed the lower court's decision. The first issue concerns the content of notices of adverse action in public assistance terminations, reductions, or denials. The district court ordered that the notices must contain a detailed, individualized reason for the action proposed and, if calculations were involved in the determination, the notices must disclose the calculations performed and the source or identity of the figures involved. In addition, the notices must contain, where appropriate, the maximum income and resource limits for the appropriate household size. On appeal, DHSS contended that this notice goes beyond the minimum requirements of due process and applicable federal regulations. The Third Circuit held that the district court properly looked to requirements mandated by the due process clause to flesh out the details of the requirements for adequate notice set forth in the federal regulations. The second issue concerns claimants' right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at an administrative hearing. The district court ordered that certain hearsay evidence be excluded from consideration at the hearing where there is no opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. DHSS contended on appeal that the district court's injunction was overbroad. The Third Circuit disagreed, noting that the district court's decision was based solely on federal regulation and did not prohibit all forms of hearsay evidence. The district court's order does not prohibit hearsay that falls within recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, or for which the claimant has had a prior chance to confront the witness. Counsel notes that, in many cases in Delaware, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is denied due to the lack of subpoena power by the agency administering public assistance programs. In the future, counsel stresses, if witnesses are not voluntarily present, their testimony cannot be considered in reaching a hearing decision.