Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
In re Gregory T.
No. 2969538H (N.Y. Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance Oct. 29, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52272
Description
Elderly and Disabled Food Stamp Households Are Entitled to Certification Periods of up to 24 Months
Abstract
The administrative law judge determined that the Food Stamp Act as
amended by the federal welfare law (Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) allowed certification
periods of up to 24 months if all adult household members were
elderly or disabled. Appellant is a disabled Supplemental Security
Income recipient and one-person food stamp household. At two of his
food stamp recertifications, recipient asked that he be certified
for two years. The agency refused and recertified his food stamps
for only 12 months at a time. Recipient appealed, claiming that
section 801 of the federal welfare law amended the Food Stamp Act,
42 U.S.C. § 2012 (c), to allow two-year certifications.
Appellant argued that, although the New York State Department of
Family Assistance had not conformed state regulations to reflect
that the federal welfare law allowed eligibility of up to 24
months, federal regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 23.10 (f)(4) requires
that "[h]ouseholds shall be assigned the longest certification
periods possible based on the predictability of the
household’s circumstances." The administrative law judge
found that agency failed to show that it had evaluated
appellant’s eligibility for the extension and ordered it to
make a determination for eligibility and to send written notice of
its decision.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
