Roque v. State Department of Social Services

Citations: 157 So. 3d 1220; 2014 La.App. 4 Cir. 0865; 2015 La. App. LEXIS 289; 2015 WL 691197Docket: No. 2014-CA-0865

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 17, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justo E. Roque, Jr. appealed a judgment affirming the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services' (Family Services) determination of his SNAP benefits from January 2012 to February 2014. Roque, disabled since 2005 and receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and SNAP benefits, had his monthly SNAP reduced from $86 to $41 following a cost-of-living increase in his SSI from $607 to $698. After an initial month at the reduced rate, his benefits were adjusted to $62 due to increased rent expenses. 

Roque requested a fair hearing after the reduction, which was scheduled for March 5, 2012. He failed to appear, leading to the matter being deemed abandoned. Following this, he filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied for lack of sufficient grounds as required by La. R.S. 49:959. Roque subsequently sought judicial review, but due to travel issues, the case was moved from the 19th Judicial District Court to Orleans Parish Civil District Court for a hearing on May 22, 2014. At that time, Roque was receiving $90 in SNAP benefits. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of Family Services, and Roque's timely appeal ensued after the court issued its reasons for judgment on June 17, 2014.

Mr. Roque's appeal lacks assigned errors for review. He contends that Family Services improperly reduced his SNAP benefits from 2012 until March 2014. However, he failed to address his missed fair hearing date and the denial of his rehearing request. The document clarifies that federal regulations require mass change notifications when adjustments affect many beneficiaries, including modifications to income eligibility and public assistance programs like SNAP. These adjustments had a widespread impact on Louisiana residents, including Mr. Roque.

Mr. Roque was granted a fair hearing on March 5, 2012, but did not appear, despite being given an additional fifteen minutes before the hearing was adjourned. He claimed issues accessing teleconference services but did not provide a valid reason for his absence. Following this, he acknowledged the correct hearing time and number but still failed to justify missing the hearing, leading to the denial of his rehearing request. The Louisiana Division of Administrative Law found no grounds for rehearing under La. R.S. 49:959, which outlines the criteria for such actions. The Division determined that Mr. Roque did not provide new evidence to justify a rehearing and concluded that his initial appeal would likely have been denied had he attended. Thus, the denial of the rehearing request was upheld, and Louisiana law permits judicial review of decisions made by state departments.

Under La. R.S. 49:964 A(1), individuals aggrieved by final decisions in adjudication proceedings are entitled to judicial review without needing to seek rehearing from the agency. Immediate review of preliminary or intermediate agency actions is warranted if final decision review would be inadequate and cause irreparable harm. Per La. R.S. 49:964 G(6), a reviewing court can only reverse or modify an administrative decision if it finds that the decision prejudiced the appellant's substantial rights based on a preponderance of the evidence. In the case of Mr. Roque, the trial court affirmed the Louisiana Division of Administrative Law’s denial of his rehearing request, finding no prejudice to his rights. The court reviewed extensive allegations from Mr. Roque regarding the calculation of his benefits and found no evidence of prejudice, conspiracy, collusion, or fraud. It noted that Family Services has no discretion regarding expense considerations or calculation methods and that the benefits issued were in accordance with policy. The trial court, commended for using an interpreter for Mr. Roque, who has limited legal knowledge, affirmed the judgment without dismissing his appeal despite procedural shortcomings. The court ultimately found no error and affirmed the trial court's decision.