W. W. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2252-05T12252-05T1

W. W.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

_________________________________________

 

Submitted March 14, 2007 - Decided April 11, 2007

Before Judges Collester and Lyons.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, HPW-7707-05 W.W.; and the Passaic County Board of Social Services, Agency Docket No. C034339.

Northeast New Jersey Legal Services, attorneys for appellant (Stanley G. Sheats, on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Dennis J. Conklin, Senior Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, W.W., appeals from a final decision issued by respondent, Department of Human Services ("Department"), which ruled that appellant is not eligible for an increase in his food stamp benefits based upon medical expenses incurred as a result of his wife's surgery. Because the record below failed to address certain pertinent issues, we remand the matter to the Department for further proceedings. The following factual and procedural history is relevant to our consideration of the issues advanced on appeal.

Appellant is a food stamp recipient who resides with his wife in Passaic County. He received a notice dated June 8, 2005 from the Passaic County Board of Social Services ("Board") reducing his food stamps from seventy-three dollars a month to ten dollars a month effective July 1, 2005.

Appellant's wife underwent an operation in December 2004. The medical bills resulting from the surgery are approximately $4500. Appellant presented the medical bills to the Board during his recertification on April 28, 2005. He was not allowed to utilize them as a deduction, however, because the Board stated his wife was not part of his food stamp household. Under the applicable regulations, N.J.A.C. 10:87-1.1 to -13, appellant's wife was not part of his food stamp household and is disqualified from receiving food stamps due to her status as an ineligible alien. Because the Board denied his request, appellant requested an administrative "fair hearing" to contest the denial, and on September 6, 2005, an Administrative Law Judge heard the matter as a contested case.

Appellant argued that he had incurred medical expenses which should be deductible because, while he was not the patient, he was the patient's husband and as such, under the doctrine of necessaries, he was liable for these expenses. See Jersey Shore Med. Ctr. v. Estate of Baum, 84 N.J. 137 (1980). The Administrative Law Judge found, though, that "there is no authority in the Code to support such a position, although the [appellant's] argument is certainly an interesting one." Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the medical expenses could not be factored into the calculation for appellant's food stamp benefit holding that, "[t]he Code is absent any authority to support such a position." Following that decision, the Department, upon review, adopted the Administrative Law Judge's determination and this appeal ensued.

Appellant argues that the medical bills brought about by surgery on his wife should be considered in determining appellant's medical expense deduction for food stamp eligibility and that he should not be disqualified from receiving the deduction on the basis that he did not report his wife's medical expenses in the month they were billed or otherwise due.

The regulation authorizing deductions from income for food stamp eligibility purposes provides, in pertinent part, that:

Deductions from income will be allowed only for the following expenses of the household:

(3) That portion of medical expenses in excess of $35.00 per month, . . . incurred by any household member who is elderly or disabled as defined as N.J.A.C. 10:87-2.34 . . .

[N.J.A.C. 10:87-5.10(a)3.]

To allow a deduction from income, therefore, one needs to determine if the appellant who is claiming the deduction, is "elderly or disabled as defined at N.J.A.C. 10:87-2.34." There is nothing in the record which informs us whether appellant is either elderly or disabled as defined in N.J.A.C. 10:87-2.34. If appellant does not meet either of those requirements, the point is moot. If he does, to allow the deduction, one would need to find and determine whether appellant himself is liable for the medical expenses resulting from his wife's surgery under Jersey Shore, supra. The record discussed the argument but no facts were presented or conclusions made on that point. We note, however, that the Court concluded in Jersey Shore that, "[t]here is no doubt that the cost of hospital and medical care qualifies as a necessary expense." 84 N.J. at 142; see also Capodanno v. Capodanno, 58 N.J. 113 (1971).

Lastly, we note that the Court's holding in Jersey Shore requires, as a predicate to a spouse's liability for the other spouse's necessaries, a determination that the income and other property of the spouse who incurred the debt cannot satisfy the debt because their financial resources are insufficient, before the other spouse will be liable. There is nothing in this record which addresses that issue as well. The record, then, does not reflect whether appellant is elderly or disabled, whether he has incurred medical expenses under Jersey Shore, whether he is liable for same and, if so, when such liability attached.

 
Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Department for a further hearing on these points. We do not retain jurisdiction.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2252-05T1

RECORD IMPOUNDED

April 11, 2007