Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

JANICE VISCONTO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/13/83)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: May 13, 1983.

JANICE VISCONTO, 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: Ms. Janice Visconto, No. 920 503 C.

COUNSEL

Stephen F. Gold, for petitioner.

Catherine Stewart, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 304]

Janice Visconto appeals a Department of Public Welfare (DPW) order dismissing her appeals. We affirm.

The Philadelphia County Board of Assistance terminated Visconto's benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC) after Visconto failed to provide information re-establishing her eligibility. She was notified that she could appeal the termination within thirty days. She subsequently re-applied for, and received, benefits which were again terminated under similar circumstances. The DPW hearing officer dismissed her appeals as being untimely filed and rejected her assertion that the Board had lost previously-filed appeals. DPW affirmed.

Our review of a DPW adjudication is limited to determining whether the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence or is contrary to law, and whether the appellant's constitutional rights have been violated. Montgomery County Child Welfare Services v. Hull, 51 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, 413 A.2d 757 (1980) (citing the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. ยง 704). "Substantial evidence" is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gibson v. Department of Public Welfare, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 27, 384 A.2d 1030 (1978).

Visconto argues that the hearing examiner's determination that her appeals were untimely is not supported by substantial evidence.*fn1 Based on our review of the record, however, we disagree. Although Visconto did present evidence to the contrary, this merely raises questions of the credibility and weight to be accorded

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 305]

    the respective evidence, questions which only the Department can resolve. See Department of Health v. Howell, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 42, 354 A.2d 21 (1976).

Affirmed.

Order

The order of the Department of Public Welfare in No. 920 503 C, dated April 1, 1980, is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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