Appeals Archive

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Department of Human Services correctly determined that not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare at redetermination. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM. The Department of Human Services correctly determined that not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare at redetermination. was was PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On August 24, 2023, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action informing Appellant that based on the renewal form information she is not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare, but is eligible for a Qualified Health Plan. 2 On September 25, 2023, Appellant filed an appeal. 3 2. On November 2, 2023, the Human Services Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. The Human Services Judge held the record open to allow the parties to submit the fee-for-service notice. On November 13, 2023, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and four exhibits. 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Department of Human Services correctly determined not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM. The Department of Human Services correctly determined not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare. was was PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On September 21, 2023, the Department of Human Services (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action informing the appellant that he was not eligible for Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare, but was eligible for a qualified health plan either with or without advanced premium tax credits. 2 On October 2, 2023, Appellant filed an appeal. 3 2. On November 9, 2023, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On November 9, 2023, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Department of Human Services correctly terminated Medical Assistance benefits for failing to renew. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM. The Department of Human Services correctly terminated Medical Assistance benefits for failing to renew. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On August 2, 2023, the Department of Human Services (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action informing Appellant that her Medical Assistance would be closing effective August 31, 2023 for failing to submit renewal paperwork. 2 On September 16, 2023, Appellant filed an appeal. 3 2. On October 27, 2023, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On October 27, 2023, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency correctly determined the start date of Medical Assistance for Appellant’s children. Recommended Decision: REVERSE (see Conclusions of Law below) PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 20, 2023, the Department of Human Services (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action, informing Appellant that his children were eligible for Medical Assistance effective April 1, 2023. Agency Exhibit 1. Appellant sought earlier coverage and filed an appeal request that was received by the Appeals Division on April 25, 2023. Appellant Exhibit A. 2. On May 24, 2023, Human Services Judge John Freeman held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference, attended by Appellant. The Judge received into the record one exhibit from Appellant and one exhibit from the Agency, and held the record open for additional documents from Appellant and an optional reply from the Agency. On May 26, 2023, the Judge closed the record consisting of the testimony and five exhibits. 2

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Commission of Human Services has jurisdiction over this appeal? Recommended Decision: No, the Commission of Human Services does not have jurisdiction over this appeal at this time. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On May 12, 2023, (appellant) requested an appeal related to an action by UCare, the managed care organization (MCO). The appeal was sent to the Appeals Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS Appeals Division). 2. On May 25, 2023, the human services judge held a prehearing conference on the matter by telephone conference. The record closed at the end of the prehearing conference consisting of the prehearing conference testimony and two exhibits. 2

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether County correctly reduced Assistance hours from 4.75 per day to 4.25 hours per day. Personal Care Recommended Decision: REVERSE County’s determination. qualifies for 19 units (4 hours and 45 minutes) of personal care assistance services per day. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 8, 2023, County (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action informing the Appellant that her Personal Care Assistance (PCA) hours had been reduced from 4.75 to 4.25 hours per day. 2 On April 12, 2023, Appellant filed an appeal. 3 2. On May 9, 2023, the human services judge held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference. On May 9, 2023, the record closed consisting of the hearing testimony and two exhibits. 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE The issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the Agency correctly terminated Appellant’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Recommended Decision: AFFIRM (see Conclusions of Law below) PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. On April 18, 2023, County (Agency) sent (Appellant) a written notice of action, informing Appellant that her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits would end as of May 1, 2023. Agency Exhibit 1. In response, Appellant filed an appeal request that was received by the Appeals Division on April 30, 2023. Appellant Exhibit A. 2. On May 23, 2023, Human Services Judge John Freeman held an evidentiary hearing on the matter by telephone conference, attended by Appellant and an Agency representative. The Judge received into the record one exhibit from Appellant and one exhibit from the Agency. At the end of the hearing, the Judge closed the record consisting of the testimony and two exhibits. 2