Appeal from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare, in case of Gwendolyn Ormes, Case No. 020347596.
Gwendolyn Marilyn Ormes, petitioner, for herself.
Jason W. Manne, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 589]
Gwendolyn Ormes (Petitioner) seeks review of an order of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) which affirmed the decision of the Allegheny County Assistance Office (CAO) to discontinue Petitioner's benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. We affirm.
Petitioner was laid off from her teaching position on June 22, 1983 and subsequently applied for receipt of contributions made to the State Teachers Retirement Fund. On November 14, 1983, Petitioner applied for AFDC benefits for herself and her minor son. Although Petitioner informed her intake worker that her retirement contributions would be made available, Petitioner did not sign an acknowledgement for reimbursement.*fn1
[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 590]
AFDC benefits were authorized in the amount of $262.00 per month effective November 14, 1983.*fn2 Petitioner received her retirement contributions in the form of a lump sum payment in the amount of $1,657.68 on November 22, 1983. Petitioner properly reported receipt of this money to the CAO.
On December 22, 1983, the CAO notified Petitioner that her AFDC benefits would be discontinued effective January 10, 1984 through April 30, 1984.*fn3 Petitioner filed a timely administrative appeal which, after a hearing, was denied in part.*fn4 After DPW affirmed the administrative appeal, Petitioner filed her petition for review to this Court. We remanded the petition to DPW for further proceedings and the entry of a new decision because the cassette tapes of the prior hearing had been erased.
[ 98 Pa. Commw. Page 591]
Another hearing was held on July 24, 1985, after which Petitioner's appeal was denied. This denial was affirmed by the Office of Hearings and Appeals on September 20, 1985. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by DPW on October 23, 1985. Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on November 22, 1985.*fn5
Petitioner, pro se, argues that the lump sum money she received was not reimbursable to DPW because she had contracted with her landlord to apply the lump sum toward back rent obligations. She further argues that DPW did not comply ...