Opinion
Argued November 15, 1979
February 4, 1980.
Public assistance — Food stamps — Substantial evidence — Single household — Income eligibility.
1. A mother and daughter are properly found to be a single household for the purpose of determining income eligibility for food stamps when substantial evidence establishes that, although they receive individual income in the form of social security benefits and have different dietary requirements, they reside together, they maintain a joint checking account from which household expenses are paid and the mother purchases all food and prepares meals for both because the daughter is functionally dependent upon her as a result of a disability. [200]
Argued November 15, 1979, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., DiSALLE and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2371 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in case of Appeal of Erma C. Bennett, dated September 11, 1978.
Application to the Columbia County Board of Assistance to participate in food stamp program. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Department of Public Welfare. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Stewart A. Cilo, for petitioner.
Catherine Steward, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Petitioners Erma Bennett and Nancy Bennett appeal from the Department of Public Welfare's affirmance of the decision of the Columbia County Board of Assistance (CBA), which determined that they constituted one household, and, as such, were ineligible for food stamps by reason of their combined resources.
The only question presented is whether substantial evidence supports the CBA's determination that petitioners constituted one household within the pertinent regulations, and whether that determination is otherwise in accordance with the law.
Household is defined in federal regulations, at 7 C.F.R. § 270.2 (jj) [1978], as meaning:
[A] group of persons . . . who are living as one economic unit sharing common cooking facilities and for whom food is customarily purchased in common: . . . For the purpose of this definition, the term 'economic unit' means a group of individuals for whom food is customarily purchased and stored in common for use by all members of the group and for whom common living costs (such as, but not limited to, shelter costs) are customarily being met from the income and/or resources available to an individual within the group. Sharing by a group of individuals of common living quarters and even common shelter costs does not necessarily cause the group to be considered an economic unit. However, such sharing along with the purchasing of food in common, are factors which strongly indicate that the common living costs are shared by the group. Therefore, if any member or members, of the group wish to be considered as separate economic units, they are responsible for establishing that they do constitute separate economic units.
Substantially similar provisions now appear at [1979] 7 C.F.R. § 273.1.
Our scope of review of a DPW adjudication is limited to a determination as to whether or not it was supported by substantial evidence, and was in accordance with the law and as to whether or not the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated. Dragan v. Department of Public Welfare, 39 Pa. Commw. 599, at 601, 396 A.2d 77, at 79 (1979).
Petitioner Nancy Bennett is 32 years old, seriously disabled, and receives social security and supplemental security income benefits through the account of her deceased father. She resides with her mother, Erma Bennett, who receives social security benefits in her own right and as representative payee of Nancy's benefits.
The record reveals that, because of Nancy's disability, she is functionally dependent on Mrs. Bennett. Mrs. Bennett deposits her daughter's benefits, along with her own, in a joint checking account from which she pays all household expenses. Mrs. Bennett does all the purchasing and preparation of food for herself and her daughter, because Nancy is unable to perform these tasks herself.
Petitioners argue (1) that they are not a single economic unit because they have separate sources of income, and (2) that they constitute separate households because of differences in medically prescribed diets, and because any commonality of purchasing and preparation of food is due only to Nancy's disability.
We cannot agree. Separate income sources, in themselves, do not negate economic unity when there are, as here, sound findings as to sharing. Disparate diets are obviously not inconsistent with common food purchasing and cooking facilities. The CBA's finding that Mrs. Bennett prepares the food for both is a finding which necessarily imports that cooking is in common.
The record amply supports the adopted conclusion, and we will therefore affirm.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 1980, the September 11, 1978 order of the Department of Public Welfare is affirmed.
This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSALLE.