Cash Assistance Case Study

On the day of 13 March 2001 a record of interview was conducted with Bilal Skaf in relation to the complainant’s allegations. He refused to answer any questions about the matter. However, he later asked to be re-interviewed, and on the day of 3 April 2001 a further record of interview took place. The task force assigned to the offence had by then obtained records of mobile telephone use on the evening of 12 August 2000, which showed a number of calls between the mobile telephones belonging to Bilal and Mohammed Skaf within the period leading

I called Judge Heitmann, who granted a TRO telephonically at 1420 hrs and granted a warrant (#W 2015 000335) telephonically at 1417 hrs with a bail for $15,000.00 (full/no 10%) for terroristic threats.

On August 26, 2015, you responded to 41 Olsen Rd. Cocoa in reference to a violation of a "no contact" order. During your investigation you developed probable cause to arrest Alicia Balderston for violating a "no contact" order that was issued on August 20, 2015 due to a domestic violence arrest. During this call you took written statements from the victim and two witnesses.

On 05/27/2016, at approximately 2318 hours, your affiant was dispatched to 315 South Ferguson Street for a disturbance.

Regulations found at 55 Pa. Code § 275.5 stated that the issue “is not whether the CAO or administering agency acted properly based upon the information then available, but whether the appellant was eligible for the period of time at issue based upon evidence of eligibility the client is able to provide at or before the hearing”. The Department’s Representative’s testimony was that the new determination based on the new information was still pending with another Department worker and that the issue of the appeal was related to category MG-91, specifically. The ALJ finds that prior to the administrative hearing the Department was in receipt of information that could have altered the Appellant’s eligibility for MA. Prior to the administrative hearing, the Appellant should have been reviewed for eligibility under the MAWD program as requested on her appeal and issued a new eligibility determination, but the Department failed to do

On 07/12/2016, at approx. 1611 hours, I was requested to make contact with the victims referencing a hearing scheduled for 07/18/2016.

Deputy Akins made several attempts to contact M. Liebeknecht at the number obtained from the phone texts he had seen, however the number does not seem to be working. Deputy Akins obtained the phone number to M. Liebeknecht’s Father Andrew and was able to leave a message for M. Liebeknecht to return the call. Deputy Akins also sent an email to M. Liebeknecht requesting contact be made with

Therefore, this is a final order and it was proper for the father to file his Notice of Appeal within 30 days from March, 16, 2016. The father entered the Notice of Appeal on March 26, 2016, ten (10) days after. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to heard this case, which was filed in a timely manner.

On April 3, 2013, Mr. Harris was transferred to MCI-J. Exhibit 1, OSCMS Traffic History. On April 12, 2015, he filed an ARP, dated April 5th and assigned Case No. MCI-J 0288-15, which he labeled as an emergency request. Exhibit 2, Pertinent ARPs of Chester B. Harris, Jr., # 422-566, at __. The Division of Correction’s Request for Administrative Remedy form describes an emergency request

I am waiting to hear back from the plaintiffs’ attorney regarding alternate dates due to Ms. Bicker’s unavailability on January 20. They are on trial the week of January 23 and I have asked them to look at the week of January 13. I will let you know as soon as I hear back from them.

I called to Ms Porter, she was concerned about the hearing process, she stated that she spoke with the Hearing Rep, Carlos Castillos and he had told her that he did not find any break in policy or rule, so he is going to request an administrative hearing.

The applicant has a phone system where she must add minutes to receive calls, and I was unable to leave a voicemail. In this case, there were other factors leading up to the delay

Today 28 April, 2017 at 1pm I received by regular mail a notice for a court hearing on Monday 1 May, 2017 at 2PM. I am currently in St. Louis, MO and due to the extreme short notice of the Hearing letter I received it would be an extreme hardship for me to have my legal representation look at my case and provide proper legal advice and be in court on 1 May 2017 at 2PM with legal represestation. I am requesting either a telephonic hearing or to have the hearing rescheduled to later date so I could make proper arrangements to be in court with my attorney . I greatly appreciate your time regarding this matter.

The Department’s Representative contended that the SNAP OI occurred when the Appellant failed to report her son’s wages from employment in a timely manner. The Department further explained that the income information became available through the Income Eligibility Verification

On the issue of timeliness, the PA IEB Representative RH testified that the Appellant was issued a notice on July 20, 2017, again on August 16, 2017 based on the Appellant’s request, and then again on September 13, 2017, based upon the Appellant’s request. The PA IEB’s position is that the appeal is untimely filed as the notice was issued three times before receiving the appeal on September 25, 2017.