ASSEM ABULKHAIR v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1683-05T51683-05T5

ASSEM ABULKHAIR,

Appellant,

v.

PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent.

___________________________________________

 

Argued January 9, 2007 - Decided March 23, 2007-

Before Judges Weissbard and Lihotz.

On appeal from a Final Administrative Decision of the Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, HPW-DFD68437 A.A.; and the Passaic County Board of Social Services, Docket No. C090697.

Assem Abulkhair, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Dennis J. Conklin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Human Services (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Conklin, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Assem Abulkhair, appeals from a final agency decision of the Division of Family Development (DFD), a unit of the Department of Human Services. The decision, issued on October 20, 2005, by DFD Director Jeanette Page-Hawkins, rejected plaintiff's claim to recoup $3407 paid by the Social Security Administration to the Passaic County Board of Social Services (PCBSS) as reimbursement for Work First New Jersey/General Assistance (WFNJ) benefits paid to plaintiff pending his receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Plaintiff's request for reimbursement was initially referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested matter. However, after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) but before any ruling, DFD withdrew its OAL referral and decided to treat the matter under its "Administrative Review" procedures. N.J.A.C. 10:90-9.2.

In rejecting plaintiff's claim, the Director wrote as follows:

The client submitted a hearing request to the Bureau of Administrative Review and Appeals to contest the correctness of the agency action by which the Social Security Administration provided the Passaic County Board of Social Services with reimbursement of $3,407. The agency action was taken as reimbursement for Work First New Jersey/General Assistance (WFNJ/GA) benefits issued to the client pending receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Based on the documents reviewed, the client was issued $3,407 in WFNJ/GA benefits between February and March 2002 and August 2002 to June 2004, excluding the month July 2004.

The client contends in a letter dated July 17, 2005 that he does not have to repay any

monies because he provided a total of 615 hours of work in order to receive benefits. He also contends that the average hourly rate of that type of work is $15.38 which is equivalent to $9,458.70 plus useless classes and workshop hours that he was obligated to attend, and that he is the one who should be compensated. He claims that he did not sign any legal documents when applying for WFNJ/GA benefits that would allow the Social Security Administration to reimburse the Passaic County Board of Social Services monies from his initial SSI check.

It is noted for the record that the agency has the regulatory authority to seek reimbursement for all WFNJ/GA benefits issued to the client pending SSI eligibility in accordance with provisions set forth in N.J.A.C. 10:90-3.18(a)2i, N.J.A.C. 10:90-14.5 and DFD Instruction No: 04-6-4 dated June 16, 2004. It is also noted that as part of the application process, as a condition of eligibility, an applicant/recipient of WFNJ benefits is required to sign an Agreement to Repay benefits in the event of receipt of income and resources. The WFNJ program also requires each WFNJ recipient to participate in a work activity as a condition of eligibility for cash benefits. This Program is considered a temporary cash subsidy to bridge the gap while the individuals seek and obtain self-sufficiency through bona fide unsubsidized employment. It is noted that the client received a cash benefit subject to recoupment while he performed the required 615 hours of community work.

A review of numerous documents submitted by the client and agency staff indicates that contrary to the client's position, he signed an Authorization for Reimbursement of Supplemental Security Income Payment for General Assistance (GA-30 forms) on June 2, 2003, November 17, 2003 and May 5, 2004. These documents authorize the agency to recover an amount equal to the total amount of WFNJ/GA benefits received by the client from the retroactive SSI benefit. The signing of the GA-30 form also authorizes and instructs the Social Security Administration to forward to the Treasurer the client's initial SSI post-eligibility payment.

Based on the documents reviewed, I find the following: 1) the agency has the authority to recoup these benefits; 2) the client signed an agreement to repay WFNJ/GA benefits issued to him pending his receipt of SSI benefits; 3) the client received a total of $3,407 in cash assistance, subject to repayment. Therefore, it is determined that the reimbursement of $3,407 from the client's initial SSI check to the Passaic County Board of Social Services for said benefits is correct. The agency action is affirmed.

In his pro se brief, plaintiff argues that the Director's decision was "an abuse of power and discretion." Within that single point, plaintiff raises a number of other claims which should have been set out in separate point headings. R. 2:6-2(a)(5).

In any event, we have carefully reviewed plaintiff's claims in light of the record and applicable law and find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Further, our review persuades us that the Director's decision "is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Our scope of review of administrative decisions is narrow. Aqua Beach Condo. Ass'n. v. Dep't of Comm. Affairs, 186 N.J. 5, 15 (2006). We will not overturn such an agency decision unless convinced "that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair support in the evidence, or that it violated legislative policies expressed or implicit in the [enabling legislation]." Id. at 16 (quoting Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). Viewed through those principles, we discern no basis on which to intervene in this matter.

 
Affirmed.

Plaintiff argues that the matter was improperly removed from OAL based on the DFD's fear of an adverse ruling. We reject this claim.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-1683-05T5

March 23, 2007