Sandra J. Oliver Minnesota Sixth 7.28.20
Sandra J. Oliver Minnesota Sixth 7.28.20
Appellant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of filing an appeal to District
Court of an Order of the Commissioner of Human Services.
On May 14 , 2020, the Commissioner ofthe Department of Human Services issued an Order
affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, denying Appellant’s appeal of Lake County
Human Services Decision to Appellant. (Exhibit 1) The Order was sent by mail to Appellant. She
had 30 days to le and serve an appeal on interested parties. On June 12, 2020, Appellant served a
Notice of Appeal on Lake County Human Services, which was purported to be filed in Ramsey County
ofthe Second Judicial District. (Exhibit 2) lt is not clear if the Notice of Appeal was ever filed with a
court. On June 26, 2020, 14 days later, 43 days after the Commissioner’s Decision, Appellant mailed
this new notice of appeal, to the Commissioner of Human Services and Lake County Human
Services. On June 30, 2020, Appellant filed an “Amended Notice of Appeal” in Lake County District
Court ofthe Sixth Judicial District, which initiated this case. (Exhibit 3)
Appeals of commissioner of human services orders must be filed with the district court in the
county responsible for furnishing assistance. Minn. Stat. § 256.045, subd. 7. The appellant has 30
days to serve a notice of appeal on the Commissioner of Human Services and any adverse party and
file the original notice and proof of service. Id. Three days are added to the 30—day time limit ifthe
Commissioner’s Decision was mailed to Appellant. Reynolds v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., 737
N.W.2d 367( Minn. App 2007). Appellant had until June 16, 2020 to serve and file the appeal. She
served a notice of appeal on the parties for a Ramsey County appeal within the timeframe. However,
it does not appear it was ever filed in the district court of the county responsible for furnishing
assistance. She drafted a new notice of appeal, served and filed that outside of the 33—day window to
file an appeal. She did not comply with the requirements ofthe statute. When a party fails to appeal
an agency decision within the statutorily prescribed time limit, the appeal is dismissed for lack of
1
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/28/2020 4:31 PM
jurisdiction. The Court does not have subject matterjurisdiction and this appeal should be dismissed.
Davis v. Minn. Dept. of Human Rights, 352 N.W.2d 852, 854 (Minn. App 1984). While some leeway is
given to pro se appeiiants, the rules of procedure apply to all litigants. State v. Seifelt, 423 N.W.2d
368, 372 (Minn. 1988). ln addition, Appellant’s husband is an attorney, licensed for many years, and
appeared with her in the initial hearing on this matter. Appellant should not be given any deference
for violating the procedural requirements of the statute.
RECENED
DEPARTMENT 0F Mmszom
HUMAN SERVICES Lakecm
Survices
Health and Human
Docket: 232888
3. Appellant’s arguments fall into two broad categories. Appellant claims that the
income change was timely reported, and therefore that any overpayment was based on Agency
error. Appellant also argues that her apparent eligibility for MinnesotaCare during the
overpayment period should eliminate any overpayment.
4. Regarding the factual question of whether the income change was reported
timely, Appellant argues that she received several notices confirming eligibility for Medical
Assistance during the overpayment period "and after the Agency was notified of my husband’s
Social Security income...” Appellant did receive such notices, but we found that the Agency had
not been informed of the new RSDl income. Appellant reiterates her claim to the contrary, but
provides no new evidence of having informed the Agency of the change. Appellant does point
to the fact that RSDl income showed up in the prepopulated annual renewal form, and argues
that this form was "prefilled in with the information the Agency already had in my file.” That is
an inaccurate understanding of this form, however, as it automatically draws from federal
databases that hold information about the receipt of federal benefits, including RSDl. In other
P.0. Box 64W} ISL Paul. MN 155164-094! lAn Equal Opporlunirv Employer
Exhibit 1
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/28/2020 4:31 PM
words, the presence ofthe RSDI income on the renewal form is not evidence that Appeilant
reported this income. Appellant argues that it is an ”uncontroverted fact[}” that her spouse
”testified that he notified the Agency no later than June of his change in income." While
Appellant’s spouse testified to this, whether the change was in fact reported to the Agency is
the essential controverted fact in this case, and we found no other evidence beyond the
testimony that Appellant had done do. Appellant has not provided a convincing reason to
revisit this conclusion, and we therefore decline to do so.
5. Appellant also argues that she was eligible for MinnesotaCare benefits beginning
in June 2019, after her spouse began receiving Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
("RSDI") income that led to the household being over income for the Medical Assistance
program. Our earlier decision acknowledges that Appellant was eligible for MinnesotaCare in
the sense that her household’s income was within the eligibility constraints of the program.
However, Appellant was not enrolled in MinnesotaCare, consistent with our finding that her
spouse’s new income was not timely reported to the Agency. As Minn. Stat. § 256L.OS, subd.
3(a), says, MinnesotaCare coverage does not take effect until after eligibility is approved and
the first premium is paid. Appellant indicates that the Medical Assistance overpayment should
be offset based on the fact that her household income was within the limits of the
MinnesotaCare program after the increase caused by her spouse’s receipt of RSDl benefits.1
This appears to be based in part on a provision in the Minnesota Health Care Programs
Eligibility Policy Manual, at section 1.3.2.5, which states that an "overpayment amount may be
reduced or eliminated if the enrollee would have been eligible for the same program under a
different basis.” However, MinnesotaCare is not the same program as Medical Assistance. The
programs have different eligibility standards, with MinnesotaCare uniquely requiring premium
payments for eligibility, requiring that enrollees have no access to other minimum essential
coverage, among other differences. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 256L07 and256L.15. More
fundamentally, the reference in the manual provision to ”different basis” is to the Medical
Assistance bases of eligibility (also referred to as "eligibility categories”), which do not apply to
MinnesotaCare. They are delineated in Minn. Stat. § 2568.055, and confer different income
limits for different bases.
Lake County
inmgd'm
lAppeliant notes correctly that the Agency misconstrued her household’s projected annual income SGWlGeS
Human Services Judge. However, our earlier decision corrects this error, confirming as noted above that Appellant’s
household income was within the bounds of MinnesotaCare limitations. At Applicable Law 13, we state ”Thus, the
household PAI for 2019 was $28,120 and Sandra was eligible for MinnesotaCare." We conclude, however, that Appellant
did not enroll in MinnesotaCare, based on the finding that her spouse’s new income was not reported to the Agency.
2
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/28/2020 4:31 PM
decision in ail respects. This order is the final agency action for purposes ofjudicial review, and
that process is described below.
5/14/2020
if you disagree with this decision, you may start an appeal in the district court. This is a
separate legal proceeding that you must start within 30 days of the date of this decision. You
start this proceeding by serving a written copy of a notice of appeal upon the Commissioner
and any other adverse party of record and filing the original notice and proof of service with
the court administrator of the county district court The law that describes this process is
Minnesota Statutes § 256. O45 subdivision 7. i
RECEIVED
MAY 1 8 2020
Lake County
Hoaith and Human Services
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
RECEIVED
m DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES JUN122020
Lake County
Docket: _
232888
3. Appellant’s arguments fall into two broad categories. Appellant claims that the
income change was timely reported, and therefore that any overpayment was based on Agency
error. Appellant also argues that her apparent eligibility for MinnesotaCare during the
overpayment period should eliminate any overpayment.
4. Regarding the factual question of whether the income change was reported
timely, Appellant argues that she received several notices confirming eligibility for Medical
Assistance during the overpayment period "and after the Agency was notified of my husband’s
Social Security income..." Appellant did receive such notices, but we found that the Agency had
not been informed of. the new RSDl income. Appellant reiterates her claim to the contrary, but
provides no new evidence of having informed the Agency of the change. Appellant does point
to the fact that RSDl income showed up in the prepopulated annual renewal form, and argues
that this form was "prefilled in with the information the Agency already had in my file.” That is
an inaccurate understanding of this form, however, as it automatically draws from federal
databases that hold information about the receipt of federal benefits, including RSDl. in other
P.0. Bax 64941 lSi. Paul, MN '55l64-094/ lAn Equal Opporluniry Employer
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
30a_nned 6/12/2020 9:47:02 AM State of Minnesota
7/28/2020 4:31 PM
h RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 2020
Lake County
words, the presence of the RSDI income on the renewal form Is not evidenmdbbeamwlces
reported this income. Appellant argues that it ls an "uncontroverted fact[]” that her spouse
"testified that he notified the Agency no later than June of hls change ln income.” While
Appellant’s spouse testified to this, whether the change was in fact reported to the Agency is
the essential controverted fact ln this case, and we found no other evidence
beyond the
testimony that Appellant had done do. Appellant has not provided a convincing reason to
revisit this conclusion, and we therefore decline to do so.
5. Appellant also argues that she was eligible for MinnesotaCare benefits beginning
in June 2019, after her spouse began receiving Retirement, Survivors, and
Disability insurance
("RSDl") income that led to the household being over income for the Medical Assistance
_ .
program Qur earlier decision acknowledges that Appellant was eligible, for,MinnesotaQare in
the sense that her household’s income was within the eligibility constraints of the
program.
However, Appellant was not enrolled in MinnesotaCare, consistent with our finding that her
spouse’s new income was not timely reported to the Agency. As Minn. Stat. § 256L.05, subd.
3(a), says, MinnesotaCare coverage does not take effect until after eligibility is approved and
the first premium is paid. Appellant indicates that the Medical Assistance
overpayment should
be offset based on the fact that her household income was within the limits of the
MinnesotaCare program after the increase caused by her spouse’s receipt of RSDl benefits}
This appears to be based in part on a provision in the Minnesota Health Care Programs
Eligibility Policy Manual, at section 1.3.2.5, which states that an “overpayment amount may be
reduced or eliminated if the enrollee would have been eligible for the same program under a
different basis." However, MinnesotaCare is not the same program as Medical Assistance. The
programs have different eligibility standards, with MinnesotaCare uniquely requiring premium
payments for eligibility, requiring that enrollees have no access to other minimum essential
coverage, among other differences. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 256L.07 and 256L.15. More
fundamentally, the reference in the manual provision to ”different basis” is to the Medical
Assistance bases of eligibility (also referred to as "eligibility categories”), which do not
apply to
MinnesotaCare. They are delineated in Minn. Stat. § 2568.055, and confer different income
limits'for different bases.
'
6. in summary,
Appellant has not provided a convincing rationale to revisit our
earlier decision, and we therefore decline to reconsider it. We confirm the April 7, 2020,
‘Appeilant notes correctly that the Agency misconstrued her household's projected annual income in its response to the
Human Services Judge. However. our earlier decision corrects this error,
confirming as noted above that Appellant’s
household income was within the bounds of MinnesotaCare limitations. At Applicable taw 13, we state ”rhus, the
household PAI for 2019 was $28,120 and Sandra was eligible for MinnesotaCare." We conclude,
however, that Appellant
did not enroll in MinnesotaCare, based on the finding that her spouse’s new income was not
reported to the Agency.
2
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
decision in all respects. This order is the final agency action for
purposes of judicial review, and
that process is described below.
f
at;Wm" 5/14/2020
Jol‘r’ reeman Date
Dir ctor, Appeals Division
... _-- . .. .. . __...
Appellants who disagree with this decision should consider seeking legal counsel to identify
further legal action.
if you disagree with this decision, you may start an appeal in the district court. This is a
separate legal proceeding that you must start within 30 days of the date of this decision. You
start this proceeding by sewing a written copy of a notice of appeal upon the Commissioner
and any other adverse party of record, and filing the original notice and proof of service with
the court administrator of the county district court. The law that describes this
'
process is
Minnesota Statutes § 256.045, subdivision 7.
June 9, 2020
Sandra J. Oliver
1562 Burlington Rd.
Two Harbors, MN 55616 RECElVED
Ms. Jodi Harpstead
JUN I 2 2020
Enclosed and served upon you, please nd Notice of Appeal of the Denial of Request for
Reconsideration, Docket No. 232888.
Sincerely,
iwm
Sandra Oliver
Enc.
Exhibit 2
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
Scanned 6/12/2020 9:46:59 AM State of Minnesota
7/28/2020 4:31 PM
STATE 0F MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
SECOND IUDICIAL DISTRICT
SANDRA OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
N TICE OF. PEAL
JODI HARPSTEAD,
COMMISSIONER
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
RECEIVED
Defendant.
JUN 1 2 2020
Lake County
Health and Human Services
<
Dated: June 9, 2020.
Sandra Oliver, Pro Se
1562 Burlington Rd.
Two Harbors, MN 55616
(612) 701-7038
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
State
StateofofMinnesota
Minnesc
7/28/2020 14:31
6/30/2020 1 :50PM
A
SANDRA OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
IODI HARPSTEAD,
COMMISSIONER
OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §256.045, subdivision 7, Sandra Oliver hereby appeals the
Commissioner of Human Services’ Denial of Request for Reconsideration, dated May l4, 2020,
as the final agency action in the above-referenced matter, a copy of which is attached hereto.
WQW
.
I)
Exhibit 3
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
I
"gateofofMinnesota
State Minnesc
7/28/2020 14:31
6/30/2020 1 :50PM
A
DEPARTMENT 0F
HUMAN SERVICES
pocket; w ‘ “2321838“ _ _
3. Appellant’s arguments fall into two broad categories. Appellant claims that the
income change was timely reported, and therefore that
any overpayment was based on Agency
error. Appellant also argues that her
‘
apparent eligibility for MinnesotaCare during the
overpayment periOd‘should‘eliminate any overpayment; ’ “ ‘
P.O. Box 64941 ISL Paul. MN l55164~094l 'An Equal Opportunity Employer
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
n.
State of
State ofMinnesota
Minnesc
‘
7/28/2020
6/30/202 4:31
0 11: 50PM
A
words, the presence of the RSDI income on the renewal formIs not evidence
that Appellant
reported this'Income. Appellant argues that it is an ”uncontroverted
fact’ that her spouse
“testified that he notified the Agency no later than June of his
changem income.” While
Appellant’s spouse testified to this, whether the change was in fact
reported to the Agency is
the essential controverted fact in this case, and we found no other
V
evidence beyond the
testimony that Appellant had done do. Appellant has not provid a
ed convincing reason to
revisit thisconclusion, and we thereforedecline to do so.
5. Appellant also argues that she was eligible for MinnesotaCare benefits
in June 2019, beginning
after
her spOuse began receiving Retirement, Surviv
ors, and Disability insurance
(”RSDl”) incOm e that led to the house hold being over income for the Medical Assistance
_ prxogramk Qungarw_.decisip .a_ckno_\~|,e,dge_s_:hat Aapellantwgs, eligibLaio LMinn
gaétaQare in
the sense that her household’s income was within the
_.
um essential
coverage, among other differences. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 256L.07 and 256L15.
More
fundamentally, the reference in the manual provision to ”different basis” is to the Medic
al
Assistance bases of eligibility (also referred to as
”eligibility categories”), which do not apply to
MinnesotaCare— They are Minn S.tat § 2568. 055 and confer dlerent mcome
limitsfar differentbases delineatedIn — .
. _,
'
'1
Appellant notes correctly that the Agencymisconstrued her household’s
projected annual income in its response to the
Human Services Judge. However, our’earlier decision corrects this
error, confirming as noted above that Appella
household income ‘was within the bounds of nt's
MinnesotaCare limitations. At Applicable‘Law 13', we state f’Thus, the ‘
$28,120 and Sandra was eligible far MinnesotaCare,” We conclude, hoWev‘e‘ that
‘
did hot enroll in MinnesotaCare, based on the r, Appellant
finding that her spouse’s new income was not reported to the
Agency.
2
38-CV-20-208
Filed in District Court
State of
Iggat'e. 3fMinnesota
Minnesc
7/28/2020 11:50
6/30/2020 4:31 PM
A
decision in all respects. This order is the finai agency action for
that process described below. purposes ofjudiciai revi‘ew,.and.
is
HUMAN SERVICES:
FoR.THEnc0Miissi0NER‘0F
A! . ‘
:/
i
.
hexWm”
. ~
‘
5/14/2020
Joh’, Freeman i
Date
Dir, ctor, Appeals Division
lfyou disagree with this decision, you may start an appeal in the district ’
coart. This is a
separate legal proceeding that you must start within 30
days of the date of'this decision. You
startthis proceeding'by serving a written
copy of a notice of appeal upon the Commissioner
and any other of
adverse party record, and filing the original notice and proof
v
the c0urt administrator of the county district Court. The law that describes of'service with '