Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHERYLENE NAUSS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/09/79)

decided: March 9, 1979.

CHERYLENE NAUSS, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in case of Appeal of Cherylene Nauss, dated September 1, 1977.

COUNSEL

Stephen R. Krone, for petitioner.

Edward P. Carey, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 131]

To decide the very narrow issue presented by this appeal it is not necessary to recite the rather bizarre and complicated facts which gave rise to the problem. Petitioner has requested a retroactive one-time grant of unborn child benefits. The eligibility conditions for unborn children, found at Section 145.43(b) of the Department's Public Assistance Manual (Manual),*fn1 55 Pa. Code ยง 145.43(b) provides pertinently:

(b) AFDC eligibility conditions for unborn children. The following will constitute the AFDC eligibility conditions for unborn children:

(1) An unborn child will be considered an AFDC child if the following two conditions are met:

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 132]

(i) The circumstances of the parent or parents are such that the child, if born, would qualify as a dependent child.

(ii) The pregnancy has been established by a physician.

(2) For purposes of determining need and the amount of the grant, the assistance unit will be considered to have one additional member when a pregnancy is medically diagnosed. Assistance will be authorized effective the first payment date after the pregnancy has been established. . . .

The pertinent facts are that petitioner's pregnancy was diagnosed by a physical examination on April 12, 1976. The first notice that the respondent had from petitioner as to her pregnancy was on April 12, 1977, over one year later and four months after the child was born. On June 10, 1976, the respondent had received a statement from a man then living with petitioner indicating he was unable to seek employment because he was needed "at home" to care for petitioner who ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.