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.

REGINA NOLF v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/19/82)

decided: October 19, 1982.

REGINA NOLF, 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 Regina Nolf, No. L-513082-C.

COUNSEL

Lucinda A. Bush, with her, Christine Luchok Fallon, Deirdre McDonald and Denise Niedzielski, for petitioner.

Carol A. Genduso, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 399]

The petitioner,*fn1 a welfare client receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), applied for two special allowances from the state welfare authorities consisting of the County Board of Assistance (CBA) and the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). Both applications were denied, and she has appealed DPW's final actions.

From June, 1975 through July, 1977, the petitioner attended and completed a basic beauty operator's course consisting of 1250 hours of training at the Pittsburgh Beauty Academy. The petitioner became an AFDC recipient on June 3, 1976 and remained so until September 2, 1977. After she completed this training DPW paid the costs attendant upon her taking the State Board Examination, which she passed.

The petitioner did not receive AFDC from September 2, 1977 until October 12, 1979. During this time she completed a teacher's course at the Pittsburgh Beauty Academy and obtained a teaching certificate.

The petitioner has been receiving AFDC since October 12, 1979. On December 11, 1979, she told her CBA that she would attend an electrolysis course at the Pittsburgh Beauty Academy, which started on December 17, 1979 and ended in February, 1980. In this connection she applied for (1) a nonrecurring grant of $75 for uniforms and (2) a recurring transportation allowance in the amount of $1.20 per day for about 50 days.

The CBA refused the petitioner's requests for the special allowances on the ground that she was "job ready" and that the electrolysis training was not part of her training plan. The petitioner filed a timely appeal; a hearing was held; and a DPW hearing examiner sustained the CBA's action. This was affirmed

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 400]

    by the Director of the Hearing and Appeals Unit. We affirm.

The grant or refusal to approve the items applied for by the petitioner are matters referred to the discretion of the public assistance authorities. Transportation grants of the nature the petitioner sought are the subject of Department of Public ...


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.