Welfare Benefits Case Referred to Special Commissioner

The Court today issued an order in SER K.M., et al. v. WV DHHR, et al., No. 30494.  In this case, the petitioners seek to prohibit the state department from terminating welfare assistance benefits for those families and children who have reached a five-year limit on benefits imposed by the federal government.  The Court previously issued a rule to show cause. 

Today's order denies the petitioners' motion for a stay, names Senior Status Judge Daniel L. McCarthy as Special Commissioner, with directions to: "(1) oversee expedited discovery, which may include reasonable depositions; (2) take evidence, including testimony, as is necessary to properly address the matters set out in the pleadings and those matters hereinafter stated, and to develop a basis and record for his findings and recommendations; and (3) submit a written report to this Court on or before the 16th day of September, 2002, containing said findings and recommendations on the following issues and relevant matters:

1. The adequacy and fairness of the standards, policies, procedures and practices employed by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources: (a) to terminate benefits; (b) to give notice and an opportunity to be heard to recipients; (c) to deny or grant extensions; and (d) to provide recipients with pre- or post-termination due process.  This analysis shall include identification of other options in these areas, and the merits and demerits of such options, and shall include, if possible, some comparison to policies and procedures in other jurisdictions.
2. The financial impact on the State fiscally of the potential relief that is prayed for in the petition, both with regard to adults and children, and with regard to children separately.
3. The effects of termination of benefits on terminated adults without children, on terminated adults who have children, and on terminated children, including any effects on a childís right to an education.
4. A determination of the requirements of West Virginia law and its interplay with federal law.
5. A determination of whether there was an adequate showing that all of the elements for a writ of mandamus are satisfied.
6. A determination of whether the Constitution of the State of West Virginia provides a right to public assistance. This issue should be examined in the context of prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, as well as decisions from other jurisdictions addressing the same constitutional issue.
7. A determination of whether equal protection guarantees are impaired by the respondentís conduct in terminating benefits.
8. Such other areas of inquiry and evidence as may be considered relevant or material by this Court."

The Court further directed that Special Commissioner McCarthy "may entertain and, in his discretion, rule upon requests for pendente lite relief, which rulings may be reviewed by this Court upon motion thereof." Finally, the Court directed that Special Commissioner McCarthy "ensure that all proceedings are on the record, are duly recorded by a certified court reporter, and are transcribed."  [Permanent Link]  Google It!