Court Holds that Doe v. Doar Class Members Entitled to Offset of Debt Owed the Agency

January 16, 2010

Author: Susan C. Antos

The case of Doe v, Doar, 26 AD2d 787 (2006), app dismissed 6 NY 3d 89, successfully challenged the illegal reduction of public assistance grants to individuals living in households with children where a family member was in receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The final judgment resulted in the restoration of tens of thousands illegally reduced public assistance grants, but  the terms of the order limited the restoration of Doe underpayments to class members who were recipients of public assistance.  Class members who were no longer in receipt of public assistance received a notice advising them of the amount that they were underpaid, but were ineligible to receive payment unless they went back on public assistance.  For some class members, particularly those who became eligible for SSI themselves or whose children had grown up and become adults, the likelihood of receiving payment is very slight.

The order and judgment in Doe v. Doar did not address what affect the existence of a Doe underpayment would have on any existing overpayment owed by class members who were no longer in receipt of public assistance.  This issue is of great concern to many former recipients because some local districts commence collection proceedings to collect these debts against former recipient.

In December, the Tompkins County Supreme Court held in a case entitled Schweiger v. Hansell, that Doe class members are not eligible for their Doe underpayments because they are no longer on public assistance, should have any existing overpayments offset by their Doe underpayment.  The petitioner in Schweiger was a class member in the case of Doe v. Doar who had received a determination that as a result of the illegal budgeting challenged in Doe, she was underpaid $6,732.

At the time of the Doe litigation, Petitioner and her husband were in receipt of Supplemental Security Income and their child was in receipt of a TANF grant of public assistance.  Subsequently, the child also qualified for SSI so that no one in the household was eligible for public assistance.  As a result, Petitioner was not eligible for the payment of the $6,732 Doe underpayment that accrued while she was a recipient of public assistance. While Petitioner was a recipient of public assistance, she was overpaid $1,532.33 as a result of heating assistance provided to the family in excess of her public assistance grant. Petitioner brought this Article 78 proceeding to offset the $1,532.33 debt that she owed to the   Tioga County Department of Social Services with a portion of her Doe v Doar underpayment.

The Tompkins County Supreme Court held that the Doe v Doar judgment, remedial plan and 07ADM-06 were completely silent on the question of how to treat a Doe underpayment when the former recipient who is ineligible for payment of a Doe underpayment, also has an overpayment subject to collection.  In light of this silence, the court looked to 18 NYCRRR 352.32(d)(4) which requires that overpayments and underpayments be offset, found that the failure to offset was in error, and that the Petitioner's debt to the agency should be cancelled.

The petitioner was represented by Betsy Wohl of Tompkins/Tioga Neighborhood Legal Services in Ithaca.  The Decision and Order are available in the Benefits Law Database of the Online Resource Center at http://onlineresources.wnylc.net/welcome.asp?index=Welcome