Author: Stephen Goldberg

CalFresh face-to-face interviews

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions regarding face-to-face interviews for applications and recertifications.  7 C.F.R. § 273.2(e)(2) now gives states the option to conduct interviews for applications and recertifications by telephone.  California has been conducting telephone interviews under a federal waiver.  Now, California has accepted the option in the federal regulation to do telephone interviews.

Counties will routinely conduct telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face interviews at application and recertification for all CalFresh households regardless of the length of the household’s certification period length.  Counties may conduct face-to-face interviews if determined necessary.  However, if an in person interview in the office would be a hardship, the county must do a home visit for the interview.   Counties must inform applicants of the opportunity to have a face-to-face interview on request.   The county must provide a notice of missed interview if the applicant or recipient misses a telephone interview.  The application process cannot be negatively affected because the county does a telephone interview.   (ACL 17-80, July 31, 2017.)

IHSS electronic timesheets

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions regarding electronic timesheets for In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers.  IHSS timesheets can now be submitted electronically using the Electronic Timesheet Service (ETS).  The ETS allows providers and recipients to enter time worked and submit timesheets, and view the previous three months of timesheet history.

ETS is optional.  To use it, both the provider and the recipient need to enroll.  After both the provider and the recipient are enrolled, the provider submits the timesheet and the recipient approves it.  Providers will not be able to submit their timesheets for recipient approval if the timesheet has errors.  Examples of errors that will block submitting the time sheet are hours claimed exceed remaining recipient authorized hours , hours claimed exceed remaining provider assigned hours,  no remaining recipient authorized hours , no remaining provider assigned hours, hours claimed exceed weekly maximum, and hours claimed exceed monthly overtime maximum and hours exceed overtime exemption limitation.

Providers and recipients can opt-out of ETS at any time.  (ACL 17-76, July 14, 2017.)

State AFDC-FC eligibility for registered non-California guardianship orders

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions implementing the court order in Ramirez v. Lightbourne, Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2015-80002216, regarding eligibility for State AFDC Foster Care (AFDC-FC) benefits for guardians with non-California guardianship orders.  The state AFDC-FC program provides cash aid to non-relative legal guardians.  (See Welf. & Inst. Code § 11405; MPP § 45-203.)  Previously, non-relative guardians with non-California guardianship orders could only be eligible for State AFDC-FC by obtaining a California guardianship order.  Ramirez held that non-relative legal guardians with non-California guardianship orders are eligible for State AFDC-FC if the guardianship order is registered with a California court.

Counties must inform applicants for State Only Foster Care benefits who have a guardianship order issued by another state that they may be eligible for benefits either by registering their non-California guardianship order with a California court or by obtaining a new guardianship order from a California court.  (ACL 17-82, July 27, 2017.)

International child support enforcement

Posted on by

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services has released instructions that 14 forms for international child support cases have been approved for use.

The United States ratified the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance on August 30, 2016.  The Hague Child Support Convention provides a legal framework and administrative procedures for international child support cases, speeds up the enforcement of U.S. orders by limiting the circumstances under which a court can review and object to an order those similar to grounds now allowed under United States law, recognizes United States due process requirements, and provides standardized time frames and procedures for international case processing.  (See OCSE DCL 16-11.)  31 countries have signed the Hague Child Support convention.

Child support agencies must use the approved forms for case processing with convention countries unless the responding countries has different form requirements.  (OCSE AT 17-06, July 11, 2017.)

CAPI application procedures

Posted on by

The California Department of Social Services has issued instructions regarding applications for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI).  Any person can apply for CAPI by telephone, in writing to the county social services agency or in person at the county social services agency office.  For individuals applying by telephone, the county must complete the CAPI application form over the phone.  Counties must have a face-to-face contact with the applicant as part of the application process.  The county should begin the application process and follow up by making an in person appointment.  If the applicant cannot travel to the local social services agency office for a face-to-face contact because of a disability or other good reason, the county must make alternative arrangements.

Counties cannot refer applicants or recipients to apply for SSI before evaluating immigration status.  Counties cannot refer applicants or recipients to apply to SSI if the county determines the applicant is not a qualified immigrant or the applicant or recipient has applied for SSI in the last six months and was denied solely because of immigration status.  When the county refers an applicant or recipient to apply for CAPI, the applicant or recipient must do so within 30 days.

Counties must make all CAPI forms available in each of the threshold languages in the county.  CDSS has translated the CAPI forms into the state threshold languages.  When the client’s primary language is other than one of the state’s or county’s threshold languages, the county must provide an in person interpreter or use a telephone interpreter service to communicate in the client’s primary language.

Counties must make a decision to approve or deny CAPI as soon as possible but no later than 30 days following the date of application.  The county cannot delay making a decision to wait for a decision on a SSI application.  The date of application is the date an individual expresses the desire to apply for CAPI by telephone or in person, or the date the county receives a written request.

CDSS policy is to make an exception to the 30 day period for applicants under age 65 claiming disability and a Medi-Cal disability determination has not been made.  In those cases, counties have 30 days from the date the county obtains a disability determination from the Disability Determination Services Division (DDSD) to make a determination.

When benefits are granted, the applicant is entitled to benefits retroactive to the first day of the month following approval.  In cases delayed by waiting for a DDSD determination, benefits are granted retroactive to the first day of the month following the application date.  (ACL 17-31, May 18, 2017.)

Social Security evaluation of symptoms in disability cases

Posted on by

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a ruling regarding evaluation of symptoms.  This ruling rescinds SSR 96-7p and eliminates the term “credibility” from policy.

In evaluating symptoms, SSA first determines whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is reasonably expected to produce the individual’s symptoms.  Medical signs or laboratory findings must show a medically determinable impairment.  SSA does not consider whether the severity of the alleged symptoms is supported by objective medical evidence.

If there an underlying physical or medical impairment, then SSA evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities for an adult, or to function independently in an age-appropriate manner for children.  In considering the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, SSA examines the entire case record, including objective medical evidence, the individual’s statements, other information provided by medical sources and individuals and any other relevant evidence in the record.

SSA first examines objective medical evidence.  However, an individual’s statements about intensity, persistence and limiting effects of symptoms cannot be disregarded because objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment the individual alleges.

If objective medical evidence does not allow for a fully favorable decision, then SSA considers other evidence, including the individual’s statements, medical sources, and non-medical sources.  Factors SSA considers are: daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication and other measures used to relieve symptoms such as lying on the back or sleeping on a board.

If the individual’s statements are consistent with objective medical evidence, SSA will determine that the symptoms are more likely to reduce capacity for work related activities.  SSA also considers the consistency of the individual’s statements.  However, inconsistent statements do not necessarily mean statements are inaccurate because symptoms may vary, worsen or improve over time.

SSA considers attempts to seek and follow medical treatment once it is prescribed in evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.  However, SSA will not find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence without considering possible reasons for not seeking or complying with treatment.  Factors SSA may consider include: the individual may have structured activities to reduce symptoms to a tolerable level, the individual may receive periodic treatment or evaluation for medication refills because symptoms have plateaued, medication side effects are less tolerable than the symptoms, inability to afford treatment, a medical source advises that there is no further effective treatment, or a mental impairment limits the ability to understand the need for treatment.

Determinations or decisions must contain specific reasons for the weight given to symptoms consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated to allow the individual and any subsequent reviewer to assess how the adjudicator evaluated the symptoms.  Adjudicators cannot assess overall character or truthfulness.  Adjudicators can only focus on the evidence presented.  SSR 16-3p (March 28, 2016).

Posted in SSI