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.

BARRY KNIER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/23/84)

decided: August 23, 1984.

BARRY KNIER, 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: Barry Knier, Case No. 86277.

COUNSEL

Frederic Chardon, for petitioner.

John G. Knorr, III, Senior Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Williams, Jr., Doyle and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.

Author: Doyle

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 610]

This is an appeal by Barry Knier (Petitioner) from an order of the Executive Deputy Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (Department), which found that Petitioner was ineligible for General Assistance benefits as a "chronically needy person" pursuant to Section 432(3)(i) of the Public Welfare Code (Code).*fn1

Petitioner began receiving general assistance benefits on May 5, 1981. On January 24, 1983, the County Assistance Office notified Petitioner that he was determined to be "transitionally needy" and eligible for only ninety days worth of benefits per year, pursuant to Section 432(3)(iii) of the Code.*fn2

Petitioner appealed this determination, and a hearing was held on April 13, 1983. At the hearing, Petitioner contended that he had exhausted his unemployment compensation benefits, in accordance with the requirements for "chronically needy" eligibility as

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 611]

    set forth in Section 432(3)(i)(H) of the Code. It was agreed by the parties that the Hearing Officer would receive additional evidence on this issue by phone. On May 12, 1983, the Hearing Officer denied Petitioner's appeal on the basis of this additional evidence, stating:

The appellant contends that he has collected unemployment compensation benefits and can prove the required work history. A few days after the hearing, the worker called to say that his work history was verified, but that unemployment compensation benefits were collected but not exhausted, as required.

The Hearing Officer's decision was affirmed by the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals. After Petitioner's request for reconsideration was denied, an appeal to this Court was taken.

On appeal, Petitioner argues that the Hearing Officer erred as a matter of law in concluding that he had failed to exhaust his unemployment compensation benefits, since he did not qualify for such benefits at the time he applied for general assistance.*fn3 Section ...


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.