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.

JOSEPH SLONEEM v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/12/81)

decided: August 12, 1981.

JOSEPH SLONEEM, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in the case of Appeal of Joseph Sloneem, dated July 11, 1980.

COUNSEL

Joseph Sloneem, petitioner, for himself.

Carolann Askham, Legal Assistant, with her, Jean E. Graybill, Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 240]

Petitioner Joseph Sloneem questions an order of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) affirming a decision of the Columbia County Board of Assistance (CCBA) to discontinue petitioner's cash assistance and to decrease his food stamp benefits because of his income from employment.

After his appeal to this court from the DPW determination, the petitioner on April 3, 1981 acknowledged by his signature that the chief clerk had notified him

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 241]

    of the date, time and place set for argument of the matter before us. The petitioner failed to appear for oral argument, however, and our chief clerk's records disclose no request by the petitioner to submit the case on briefs.

Consequently pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 2314, we dismiss the case for the petitioner's failure to proceed according to rule.

Even if we were to consider the case on the merits, we would affirm. By accepting full-time employment on a basis exceeding the 100 hours per month limit stated in 55 Pa. Code ยง 153.44(d)(1), the petitioner was disqualified from eligibility as a recipient of cash benefits specifically provided for families whose dependent children are deprived of support because of a parent's unemployment.

The fact that the petitioner was discharged before he actually worked 100 hours is irrelevant. When the CCBA verified his employment in anticipation of the subsequent benefit payment date, and notified him of the resulting decrease in assistance, the CCBA reasonably could have expected the petitioner's employment to continue. His subsequent ...


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.