S. J. Caterbone v. DPW - 1130 & (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent : : : : No. 1130 C.D. 2007 : : : : : : : No. 1444 C.D. 2007 : Submitted: February 15, 2008 : : OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: March 18, 2008 Stanley J. Caterbone (Caterbone) appeals pro se from a final order of the Secretary of Public Welfare affirming the denial of his food stamp benefits made by the Department of Public Welfare s (DPW) Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) because he did not comply with the work requirements of the Food Stamp Assistance Program. He maintains that he met the work requirements, that his pro se litigation constituted work and complied with the eligibility requirements, that he timely submitted evidence to establish his compliance with work requirements necessary to prove his eligibility, and that the BHA erred in concluding that he was ineligible for food stamps. For the following reasons, we affirm the orders of the BHA and the Secretary. Caterbone is a single, able-bodied adult individual with no dependents who received food stamp benefits from July 2006 through September 2006. 7 C.F.R. §273.24(b) provides that Individuals are not eligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program as a member of any household if the individual received food stamps for more than three, countable months during any three-year period. Individuals who work 20 hours per week, averaged monthly are exempt from this limitation. 7 C.F.R. §273.24(b)(1)(iii). Caterbone filed applications with the Lancaster County Assistance Officer (CAO) for food stamps. Both of these applications were denied because he had received food stamps for three months within a 36-month period and had not met the work requirements necessary to receive food stamps because he was not employed for at least 20 hours per week. He appealed the denial of both applications, and separate hearings were held on each application. At each hearing, Thomas Brownlee (Brownlee), the Lancaster CAO Income Maintenance Supervisor, testified that Caterbone s benefits had been discontinued because Caterbone had exhausted the three-month eligibility limit for food stamps for able-bodied adults who had no dependents and were not complying with food stamp work requirements. Caterbone claimed that he met the food stamp work requirements by working at least 20 hours per week as a pro se litigant representing himself in his own litigation. He stated that he earned no income for his activities. In both instances, the 2 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the appeal, and the Director of the BHA affirmed both decisions by separate order. Caterbone filed separate petitions for review with this court, which were consolidated for review.1 Caterbone argues that he is self-employed, allowable under the regulations of the Food Stamp Assistance Program, because his current litigation billings are deferred with respect to income and will be realized when settlements or judgments are reached. 2 He further contends that he is his own client, as a pro se litigant for numerous cases, and submitted invoices of his own bills to himself as evidence that he is self-employed. While Caterbone s argument is certainly imaginative, working on behalf of yourself does not comply with the work requirements of the Food Stamp Assistance Program. 7 C.F.R. §273.24(a)(2)(i-iv), dealing with eligibility for the Food Stamp Assistance Program, defines working as work in exchange for money, work in exchange for goods or services or unpaid work, verified under 1 On June 16, 2007, Caterbone filed a petition for review of the June 11, 2007 Final Administrative Order of the BHA, and on August 2, 2007, Caterbone filed a petition for review of the July 5, 2007 Final Order of the Secretary. These petitions, No. 1130 C.D. 2007 and No. 1444 C.D. 2007, were consolidated by this Court by order dated November 27, 2007. 2 In case No. 1444 C.D. 2007, Caterbone also argues that the ALJ erred when he stated that Caterbone had failed to provide documentary proof of his employment no later than May 21, 2007. Caterbone maintains that he mailed the documents on May 15, 2007, and attached as an exhibit to his brief a delivery confirmation sheet noting that delivery was made on May 16, 2007. Caterbone, however, failed to attach the documents themselves. Therefore, this Court cannot say that such documents would have indeed provided proof of Caterbone s employment. If this Court assumes that the purportedly mailed documents were the same as those provided in No. 1130 C.D. 2007, they are not considered evidence of employment as discussed in the body of this opinion. 3 standards established by the State agency, or any combination of the above. Caterbone s work for himself as a pro se litigant is neither work for money, goods or services, nor unpaid work verified under standards established by the State agency. Because Caterbone did not offer any evidence that he was fulfilling the work requirement or that he was eligible for any other exceptions or exemptions, he was clearly not eligible to receive food stamp benefits after September 2006, and the CAO properly issued a denial notice. Accordingly, we affirm. 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent : : : : No. 1130 C.D. 2007 : : : : : : : No. 1444 C.D. 2007 : : : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2008, the final order of the Secretary of Public Welfare, entered on July 5, 2007, is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
