Mike Reimer Case Study: Mr. Treagesser Case

SOCIAL SUPPORT: Client continues to complain why DHS didn’t submit her housing package to this shelter. She also states that this worker is mental health and she doesn’t have any mental health disorder to be placed in a SRO. Client also threatened to this worker to call 311, DHS advocate and the Coalition. As she quotes:” is not about you or CAMBA, I am doing this because DHS have all of my information”.

I had robotic hysterectomy on 12/16/2016 and around 12/23/2016 I called Penfed and spoke with executive regarding the disability to fill the claim. The executive explains to me that its crucial to make the first payment. That they will filled the claim to Minnesota Life, and if Minnesota Life denies the claim we could do a skipped payment. Well I called Yesterday a Young Dan which is a supervisor says its impossible sees the notes and sees that the person I was

Declaire informed HS that Mr. Palmer is unemployed at the moment because client is undocumented. As per Ms. Declaire this issue makes it hard for Mr. Palmer to find a job. Also, client stated that he is not looking, everyone turn him down. Ms. Declaire stated that she is employed at moment and earns about $1200 a month. Family PA case is active at this moment.

The OIG called KO, Income Maintenance Caseworker from the Philadelphia County Assistance Office, as its first witness. Her testimony explained the County procedure for the SNAP benefit application process. She also testified that all recipients receive instruction, including rights and responsibilities, on how to use an EBT card, and that they receive a handbook at issuance of the card.

Gomez is unemployed. PA case is fully active and family is entitled to FS for the amount of $528 and Cash Assistant for the amount of $1003. Alos, child Xavier Baez Gomez receives SSI for the amount $756.Client was reminded that she must save at least 30% of the SSI and continue to seek for

From 1991 to 1995 SNAP take-up grew from 59.1% in 1991 to over 69% in 1995. Welfare Reform of 1996 also had correlation with changes in SNAP take-up rates. While there were not a significant number of changes in fund allocation of SNAP, Welfare Reform did revoke SNAP eligibility among certain subpopulations, such as drug felons. Legal immigrants were unable to receive SNAP benefits unless they had 10 years of work history in the United States. Those of prime age and able-body without children (also referred to as able-bodied adults without dependents—ABAWDs) could only be eligible to receive SNAP for 3 months in a 3 year period. Welfare Reform

Entitlement/ Benefits: Case Manager confirmed and verified that Ms. Medina’s PA case is open and active. Ms. Medina is only receiving food stamps. Case Manager encouraged Ms. Medina to visit her PA center for the purpose of obtaining information about her case. Ms. Medina stated that she is still waiting for her Unemployment Benefits to be re-opened. Ms. Medina stated that she is attending to the back to work program.

The court decided to overthrow the defendant Mark Steverson's motion to quash stating that California is allowed to have personal authority over this case since an out-of-state law firm who hired an attorney licensed only in the State of California worked for its citizens under its government and jurisdiction. The defendant was unsuccessful in proving any compulsory action that would overthrow the power of personal jurisdiction for California and instead ruled in favor for Shawn Simons.

With that being said, it goes to show that the government is not in control. It is very hard to believe that they did not catch this error long before. It makes me question the whole purpose of Food Stamps in general.

I called to Sheavon, she stated did not understand why she received a denial notice sating she is OVI for SNAP with the income of $6500.00.

This policy requires Food Assistance programs to be means-tested, which prevents anyone who does not pass those tests no assistance. Those people still may need that assistance but because they did not qualify, they would not receive any. Because the policy was constructed like this, it does not accurately benefit a household the way it intends to. The policy also requires states to authorize regular reportings of change that is done in households that are for the elderly or disabled, migrants or seasonal farmworkers, or homeless (congress.gov)”. These reportings are done to see if the family still needs the assistance and is also used to see whether or not there has been any changes in the household. Due to the history with the fraud, the current policy has become stricter on giving assistance in order to prevent similar situations. Though, because of those rules and regulations on the policy it has blocked households who are in need of the assistance and those

He stopped working on March 1, 2013, the day of his injury. He has been working at his brother’s lawn mower repair shop. He basically comes and goes as he is able and is always paid $320 a week, regardless of how much time he spends at work. He has collected 26 weeks of Unemployment Insurance Benefits and was approved for Medicaid Disability with a $5,000 deductible every six months. He did not get Worker’s Compensation and has been denied Long Term Disability by his private insurer.

I informed him that in order to have medical, he needs to have legal residence, So I gave him the IRS phone number to contact them and inform them his

Mr Villian and he stated that he was having issues with the Klamath Falls SPD office because he moved from Klamath Falls Co to Jackson Co and He was told that he is no longer TANF DDT benefits, his OHP+ is closed and SNAP only will receive $25.00.

The first step under Trevino and Nelson is to gather the facts. In this case, the manager was not aware of or chose to ignore the facts surrounding the Italian tax system. The knowledge that the bank had with respect to the Italian tax system was therefore incomplete. The facts in this case included the mores surrounding the Italian system of tax collection and negotiation. The manager was informed that it would be advisable to declare a low amount of income and was subsequently informed of the need to hire a commercialista to handle the negotiations. The manager failed to heed this advice, in particular because he thought that these practices were unethical. The manager should have gathered the facts with respect to the mores and customs of the Italian tax collection system.