Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in the case of Appeal of Elizabeth West, No. 748 511-C.
David L. Hill, for appellant.
Catherine Stewart, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 350]
Elizabeth West appeals an order of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) which affirmed the Philadelphia County Assistance Office's (CAO) recomputation of food stamp benefits. We affirm.
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 351]
Based on additional employment income reported by West, the CAO recalculated her eligibility for benefits under both the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp programs. West's benefits (as a mother with two dependent children) under AFDC were reduced from $318.00 to $272.30 per month and her food stamp assistance was terminated.
West contends that the $172.50 allowed as a deduction by CAO for transportation and child care expenses in computing her AFDC payment, 55 Pa. Code § 183.44(f) (1) (i) and (iv), should be considered, in practical effect a reimbursement for purposes of food stamp eligibility computation. If the $172.50 in deductions is considered to be a reimbursement, it would be excludible income for the purposes of calculating food stamp eligibility, 55 Pa. Code § 523.3(c) (7) (i), (iii), and West would be eligible for food stamps.*fn1
West's contention is without merit. The food stamp provisions are clear: for purposes of calculating eligibility, AFDC payments are to be considered includible, unearned income, 55 Pa. Code § 523.3(b) (2) (i).
[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 352]
If we accepted West's argument, we would, in effect, be granting her a double payment for her transportation and child care expenses. These provisions ...