Preview
DONALD H. MEDEARIS, SBN 206849
PAUL SANDERSON-CIMINO, SBN 288157
ELECTRONICALLY
MICHAF.I, D. IZEYS, SBN 133815
BAY AREA LL'GAL AID F I L E D
1800 Market Street, 3'loor Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
San Friuicisco, CA 94102
Tclcphonc: (415) 982-1300 01/07/2020
Fax: (415) 982-4243 Clerk of the Court
BY: DAVID YUEN
dmedearis@baylegal.org Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Petitioner,
7 BRANDFN DAVIS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO COI)NTY
10
) Case No. CPF-19-516718
BRANDEN DAVIS, )
)
Petitioner )
13
)
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
) OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (CCP
14 vs ) tt 1094.5) AND ORDINARY MANDAMUS
15 ) (CCP tt1085 )
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,)
16 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY )
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY OF THE
18 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO/DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
19 SERVICFS, HUMAN
SERVICFS COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND
DOES 1-20
22 Respondents.
23
I. Introduction
24
1. This action challenges (I) Respondents'dministrative hearing decision affirming
25
Petitioner Brandon Davis's discontinuance Irom the San I"rancisco's County Adult
26
Assistance Programs ("CAAP") and a 60 day period of ineligibility (osanctionn) based
27
upon a determination that Mr. Davis committed program fiaud by not reporting
28
unemploymcnt benefits received while he was on CAAP and (2) Respondents'olicy
1
First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.8) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP li
1085); CPF-19-5(67(8
I and practice of issuing fraud sanctions for violations ol'program requirements
2 without determining whether the violation was "willful" or there was "good cause", as
required by ihe governing law.
4 2. Respondents are violating their ministerial duty by enforcing a policy mid practice of
5 assessing such sanctions without any determination of whether ihe violations were
6 will f'ulor not.
7 3. Mr. Davis seeks an order of administrative mandate under Code ol'Civil Procedure
8 ("CCP") (1094.5 overturning his administrative hearing decision (Exhibit "A") on the
9 basis that the evidence shows that he did report the receipt of unemployment benefits
10 and that, even if a finding of not reporting could be made, the evidence shows there
11 was no intent io willfully fail to repoti the unemployment benefits.
12
4. Petitioner also seeks an order of'ordinary mandate pursuant to CCP I11085 requesting
14 the Court to order the County to cease their illegal policies and practices and conform
15 their policy with their legal duty to evaluate whether a CAAP recipient "willfully"
16 when determining whether to
failed to comply with a program requirement
17
discontinue CAAP aid and impose a program sanction.
18
II. Parties
20 5. Petitioner Brandon Davis is a 48 year-old resident of San Francisco, California.
21 6, Prior to the county hearing decision that is the subject of this appeal, Petitioner Davis
22 received CAAP benefits starting November 2018.
23
7. Respondent Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco (" Board
24
25 of Supervisors" ) enacted ihe County Adult Assistance Programs at Chapter 20,
26 Article VII of thc Administrative Code of the City and County of San Francisco
27
("CAAP Ordinance" ) to establish rules and requirements for the administration of aid
2
First Amended Petition for Writ of'Administrative Mandate (CCP sa 1094.51 and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP I
10858 CPF-19-516718
to the indigent and dcpcndent poor of the City and to adopt standards and conditions
for such aid. (CAAP Ordinance 20.7-2.2,
tjij 20.7-4a.). The Board of Supervisors has
authority for establishing the policies under which CAAP is administcrcd and any
cltanges may be tnade only upon its authorization. (CAAP Ordinance tjII20.7-5(a)).
8. Respondent Human Services Agency of thc City and County of San Francisco
("Departmen of Human Scrvicesn) is responsible for administering CAAP.
(Administrative Code of the City & County of San Francisco, Chapter 20, Article I, II
20.1;1 CAAP Ordinance $ 20.7-5(b)).
10
9. Respondent Human Services Commission of the City and County of San Francisco
provides oversight of'he Department of Human Services by approving the goals and
12
objectives as reflected in the annual budget, including goals and objectives of CAAP.
13
14 (Administrative Code ol'he City & County of San Francisco, Article IV, 4.111;
I'1 see
15
also www.SFHSA.org).
16
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
17
of DOES I through 20 arc unknown to Petitioner, who therefore sucs these
19 Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based
20 upon such information and belief, allcges that at all times material herein each of the
21
DOE Respondents was an agent or employee of one or more of thc named
22
Respondents, and was acting within the course and scope ol'said agency or
23
employment. Petitioner is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
25 that each of the DOF Respondents is legally responsible in some manner for the
26 occurrences herein alleged. All allegations in this Petition that refer to the named
27
Respondents refer in like mmmer to those Respondents idcntifted as Respondents
3
First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP sS1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss
1085); CPF-19-516718
DOES I through 20, inclusive. Petitioner will amend this Petition to allege the true
names and capacities of the Doe Respondents when the same have been ascertained.
III. Leual Framework
A. San I rancisco's imnlementation of the County Adult Assistance Program
11. CAAP consists of tive separate aid programs, each providing assistance to a specific
low-income population. At thc time of his discontinuance and sanction, Mr. Davis
was receiving CAAP beneltts through its Personal Assisted Employment Services
Program (PAES). (Sce Exhibit "A", page 1).
12. The other CAAP progrmns arc General Assistance, Cash Assistance Linked to Medi-
10
Cal, the Supplemental Security Income Pentling and I'amily General Relief. (CAAP
Ordinance 1;20.7-2a).
12
13. Eligibility for CAAP must be determined under thc provisions of the CAAP
13
Ordinance and Respondent Department of Human Services regulations. (CAAP
14
Ordinance 5520.7-6(a)).
15
14. To be eligible for CAAP aid and services, an applicant or recipient must have
16
countable income and other property below CAAP's restrictive levels and comply
17
with other CAAP eligibility requirements. (CAAP Ordinance 5520.7-6).
15. CAAP beneltts must bc administered promptly and humanely, without discrimination
on account of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or political sfliliaiion and so as to
20
secure 1'r every person the amount of aid to which s/he is entitled under the law,
21
(CAAP Manual, 5590-I, Administration of CAAP).
22
I3. Discontinuance of CAAP aid
23
24 16. CAAP recipients who fail to comply with ihe program's eligibility requirements may
25
have their aid decreased, withheld or discontinued pursuant to thc procedures and
26
provisions set out in California Welfare and Institutions Code (hereinafter, W& I C)
27
I
I'I7001.5. (CAAP Ordinance, 5520.7-25 (a) and (b)).
4
I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss
1085); CPP-19-516718
17. No withholding, decrease or discontinuance ol aid shall occur unless the person to be
2 affected has been advised of the possibility of such action by means of a Notice of
Proposed Action and has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing to dispute the
proposed action. (CAAP Ordinance Id20.7-25b.), CAAP Assistance may only be
discontinued or a sanction imposed where thc recipient's 1'ailurc or refusal was
without good cause. (CAAP Ordinance, II20.7-25 (a) and (b); WXIC II1700L5 (a)
8 (5))
18. Laclt of good cause may be demonstrated by a shoiving ol'willful failure or refusal of
10
the recipient to I'ollow program requirements. (WkIC II17001.5 (a) (5)).
11
19. A willful failure or refusal is defined as where a "recipient put3sosefully
12
13 (intentionally) did noi comply with program requirements and the circumstances were
14 within their control.*'A willful failure requires evidence that the failure to follow
15 and not done because of mistal&e or verilied inability or
program rules was intentional
16
unintentional oversight ." (CAAP Fligibility Manual, 5590-6.1).
17
20. Good cause may also be shown by veri lied evidence of hospitalization, illness,
incarceration, disability or other good cause. (CAAP Ordinance $ 20.7-29.
20
21. CAAP Ordinance ( 20.7-44 states that when it is determined that there was an
21
intentional false statement or failure to comply with program requirements the
22
applicant or recipient shall be ineligible for CAAP for a period of 30 days. A second
23
instance of an intentional false statement or failure to comply with program
24
requirements shall result in a 60 day sanction from eligibility.
25
26 22, Where the discontinuance is due to an alleged false statement, misrepresentation, or
27
intentional failiue or refusal to repori. required facts, Respondents have a ministerial
5
Irirsi Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandmnns (CCP lj
1085);CPF-19-516718
duty to determine whether good cause exists for that failure or refusal. (CAAP
Ordinance ss 8520.7-25 (a) and (b), 20-7.29; Wtl'eIC. 1700 E5
I'1 (a) (5)).
C. CAAP EliLihilitv Manual
23. The CAAP Eligibility Manual is Respondent's handbook explaining how Respondent
implements thc various CAAP programs. It is available online at;
https://wsawv,sfhsa.org/about/reports-publications/halldbool&s-manuals.
24. The hrst sentence of CAAP Fligibility Manual II94-21 states that a failure to report
income by a CAAP recipient will not automatically result in a discontinuance ol'aid.
The next two sentences state that a failure to include income in a written statement
10
about income or financial assets is considered to be a willful failure to report income
and will result in a discontinuance ol'aid for fi aud.
12
25. The first time the Department of Human Services discovers unreported income,
13
assuming there was no failure to report income on a written statement, the CAAP
14
recipient's cash aid will continue, but the recipient will bc found overpaid. (CAAP
15
Eligibility Miuiual It94-21).
16
17 26. All second and subsequent discovcrics of unreported income result in a
18 there was
discontinuance of aid whether or not fiaud can be established, even when
19
no 1'ailure to report income on a written statement. (CAAP Fligibility Manual I194-21).
20
21
22
D. Right to Anneal a CAAP Discontinuance or other Action
23 is dissatisfied with any actions
27. An applicant for or recipient of CAAP aid who
relating to the withholding, decrease, denial, discontinuance, and/or recoupment of an
25
overpayment of aid shall be accorded a fair hearing upon filing a timely request.
(CAAP Ordinance It20.7-45).
27
6
First /smendod Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP li 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP li
1085y CP1'-19-5 16718
28, The hearing decision shall be based solely upon evidcncc presented at the hearing and
specifically state thc facts upon which it was based, the authority relied upon, and any
other reasons for the decision, (CAAP Ordinance II20.7-53(a)).
IV. Factual AlleLations
29. Mr. Davis received a monthly cash grant of F473 starting November 2018.
30. On January 2, 2019 Respondent Department of Human Services issued a Notice of
Proposed Action alleging that since he failed to report Unemployment Insurance
benefits (UIB) received in November 2018 and December 2018, and because this was
a second instance of failing to report income within 24 months, Mr. Davis's
10 CAAP/PAL'S cash aid would be discontinued effective January 31, 2019, and he
would be ineligible to receive aid lor 60 days.
31. Mr. Davis appealed thc proposed action and a fair hearing was held on March 14,
13 2019.
14 32. At the hearing, Mr. Davis was represented by an advocate from Bay Area Legal Aid.
15 Respondents were represented by the County Eligibility Worker.
16 Mr. Davis testified, as pcr the audio recording of that hearing, tliat he talked to one of
17 the County workers, told the worker hc had a change ol address, that he was receiving
18 UIB, that the vvorker told him to report the change of address and UIB at his next
19 meeting, and that about a week later, hc got a letter about the discontinuance. Based
20 on iVIr. Davis's testimony, since the discontinuance notice vvas dated January 2, 2019,
21 Mr. Davis appears to have reported his receipt of UIB the last week of December
22 2018.
23 33. The hearing oflicer issued a decision dated March 22, 2019 upholding Respondent
24 Department of Human Service's decision to terminate Mr. Davis's aid and impose an
25 eligibility sanction based upon not reporting ihe UIB income. The hearing decision
failed to make a determination of whether the Mr. Davis intentionally failed to report
27 the UIB income but instead held that his failure to report. 1JIB automatically resulted
in a discontinuance of CAAP/PAES cash aid,
7
First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinmy Mandamus (CCP tJ
1085); CPF-19-516718
I 34. Thc March 22, 2019 CAAP hearing decision is attached as Exhibit A and is
2 incorporated by reference.
V. Claims for Relief
A. First Cause of Action: A&lministrative Mandamus
(CCP 8 1094.5)
7 35. Petitioner re-allcges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 34 above.
36. Respondent's hearing decision is arbitrary, capricious and not supported by the
evidence. The uncontested hearing testimony was that Petitioner did tell a CAAP
10
v'orker about his 1JII3, but the worker told him to wait until his next meeting to report
12
13 37, Respondent's hearing decision is contrary to San Fran&:isco CAAP Ordinance
14 follow the requirements
sSII20.7-44 and 20.7-25b. because the hearing officer failed to
15
of Wd8IC 17001.5(a)(5) and determine whether Mr, Davis intentionally failed to
16
rcpots the UII3 or had good cause for not reporting the income before discontinuing
17
18 cash aid. In Mr. Davis's case, he did not willfully fail to report but reported the
19 income directly to a CAAP worl&er. Any failure to follow CAAP's reporting
20
procedures should be excused on thc ground of good cause because Mr. Davis
21
accepted the CAAP worker's instruction to rcport at the next meeting.
22
38. CAAP Eligibility Manual I'I98-5 authorixes thc appeal to the San Francisco Superior
23
24 Court for review of Respondents'dministrative hearing decision by means of a writ
25 of mandamus per CCP 881094.5, without payment of any fees or cost.
26
39. Petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
27
law.
28
8
First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ) 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss
1085); C PF- I 9-5167
1 8
40. Petitioner therefore requests Respondents'earing decision be reversed and thc
Petitioner be 1'ound eligible for PAES benefits for the months of November 2018
through January 2019 and for any sanction period months in which hc received no
CAAP/PAES bcncfits.
B. Second Cause of Action: Ordinate Mandamus (Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. 8 1085)
41. Petitioner rc-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 above.
42. Respondents have a duty to administer the CAAP cash aid beneliis, including PAFS
cash aid, in conformity with the requirements ol'CAAP Ordinance II( 20.7-44 and
10
20.7-25b., but Respondents have adopted a practice ol'violating this duty by
discontinuing CAAP recipients, including PAES recipients, without making a
12
dctcnnination of whether a recipient made a false statemeni or intentionally failed to
13
14 report facts, including the receipt of other income, before discontinuing cash aid.
15 43. Respondents'llegal practice is sct forth in CAAP Eligibility Manual Section ss94-21,
16
which states that "all second and subsequent discoveries of a client's not reporting
17
income result in a negative action, whether or not li'aud can be established, even when
no contradictory evidence exists."
20
44. Respondents'ractice violates their duty to administer CAAP, including PARS, in
21 20.7-44 and 20.7-25 b and
conformity with the requirements of CAAP Ordinance IIsS
22
to make a determination of whether a failure was willful or with good cause, as
23
required by sJ/d'sIC III7001.5(a)(5),
24
45, Petitioner laclis a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law except by way of
25
peremptory writ ol'mandate pursuant to CCP II1085.
26
27
28
9
I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP $ 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss
10115); CPP-I 9-5167111
46. Petitioner thcreforc requests the Court order the County to cease their illegal policies
2 and practices and conform their policy and CAAP Eligibility Manual II94-21 with
3 CAAP Ordinance II5520.7-44 and 20.7-25b and W /tt IC 5517001.5 (a) (5)
5
47. Petitioner also requests the Court order Respondents to undo any sanctions already
6
imposed under their illegal policy and practice.
7
VI. Relief Reauested
10 Petitioner seeks the I'ollowing rclicfi
48. A writ of administrative mandate voiding Respondents'earing decision as to
12
Petitioner Davis and directing Respondents to issue a new hearing decision lmding
13
the Petitioner eligible for CAAP/PAES benefits for thc months of November 2018
14
15 through January 2019 and directing Respondents to provide Mr. Davis with
16 CAAP/PAES benefits for those months and for any sanction months during which he
17
received no CAAP/PAFS benefits.
18
49. A writ of ordinary mandate ordering Respondents to cease their illegal policies and
19
practices and conform their policy and CAAP Eligibility Manual Ij 94-21 with CAAP
21 Ordinance IIS520.7-44 and 20.7-25b and W & IC Ij17001.5 (a) (5).
50. Award Petitioner attomcy*s fees under Cal CCP 551021.5.
23
51. Order such other relief as the Court may dccm just and proper.
24
25 Dated:~!w 'a ~ra I ~/
Donald H. Medearis
10
I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandannis (CCP I
1085); CPI'-19-516718
Paul Sanderson Cimino
Michael D. 1(eys
Attorneys f'r Petitioner Branden Davis
Declaration of Brandcn Davis
I, thc undersigned, declare:
8
That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled action that I have reviewed the
9
foregoing First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and Ordinary
10
Mandamus to me, that I certify that the factual allegations contained thcrcin are true to the
12 best of my Icnowledge.
13 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Calif'ornia that the
14
foregoing is true and correct.
15
Executed on 12-1 54 24'1~, 2019 in San Francisco, California.
16
17
18 Branden Davis
19
20 ///
21 ///
22
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
11
First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) mtd Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ff
10115); CPF-19-5167 18
City and Cottnty of san IFfanoiisco
London Breed, Mayor Department of Human Services
Department of Aging and Adult Services
Trent Rhorer, Executive Director
CASE NUMBER: 1452847
WORKER: Steven Ching
WORKER NUMBER: U449
BRANDEN DAVIS PROGRAM: PAES
175 6'" Street, ¹327 REQUEST DATE: 2/14/19
San Francisco, CA 94103 EFF. DATE OF ACTION: I/31/19
HEARING DATE: 3/14/19
DECISION DATE: 3/22/19
As the CAAP Fair Hearing Officer, I have weighed all the evidence and statements of fact presented at the
hearing in question. I find that the initial decision by the Department of Human Services:
[X] Was Correct Aid Paid Pending Collectible:
[ ] Should be reversed. [ ] Yes
[X] No
[ ] Not Applicable
Reasons for the decision:
ISSUE;
Whether the county correctly proposed to discontinue the claimant's PAES snpend effective I/31/19 because
ihe claimant failed to repoit unemployment benefits from November 28, 2018 ($ 91.00); December 7, 2018
($ 182.00); and December 16, 2018 ($182.00), The proposed discontinuance was for a second fraud instance
within 24 months with a 60-day sanction from the PAES progrmn,
COUNTY'S POSITION:
Steven Ching (¹U449), the claimant's current Eligibility Worker, was the county representative who initiated
the proposed negative action at issue in this case and testified as follows. Also present was the claimant's
authorized representative, Ms, Sabrina Banies, fiom Bay Area Legal Aid. On 10/6/15, the county informed
the claiinant that he failed to report earnings from work at Acrobtat on 8/15/I 5 and 9/15/15. At that time he
was counseled that any further instances of uiueported income could be treated as fraud. The claimant was
advised of this fact via Form 2175, First Unreported Income/Asseis/Duplicate Aid. Ching also reported that
he claimant was discontinued from aid in 7/11/17 for fraud. On 12/31/18, the county rec'eived an IEVES report
indicating that the claimant was receiving unemployment benefits in the amounts of $ 91.00 (November 28,
2018); $ 192.00 (December 7, 2018 and December 16, 2018). The report further indicated that the claimant
was entitled to $ 91.00 per week until a remaining balance of $ 884,00 in benefits was exhausted. Ching
P,O, Box?988, San Francisco, CA 94120-7988 (4151 557-5000~www.sfgov.orgldns
Branden Davis
Case No, 1452847
reported that because the claimant had not reported this income, and since this was the second time that the
—FRA IJD Discontinuance.
claimant failed to report income, he sent Form 2160, Notice of Proposed Action
This Fotrn 2160 was submitted during the hearing and informed the claimant that his PAES stipend would be
discontinued effective 1/31/19 because the claimant had "unearned income that you did not report to CAAP in
a timely manner." Ching also submitted into evidence the claimant's Form 2139A, Employability
Consultation, dated 2/20/19, indicating that the claimant was found to be unemployable due to a disabling
condition that has lasted or will last for 12 months or more and continues to exist, and that he may be SSI
eligible.
This evaluation was performed by Kevin Heancy, LCSW. On 3/18/19, this hearing officer contacted Mr.
Heaney to inquire about the case. Mr. Heaney reported that in his opinion, the claimant suffers fiom
delusional disorder, but that this disorder does not "rise to the level to prevent him from complying with
program requirements,"
CLAIMANT'S POSITION:
The claimant appeared and gave the following testimony with the assistance of Ms. Ba'mes. He stated that he
did report the unemployment benefits and that the county knew about it. FIe did not recall who he reported
this income to. Barnes submitted a letter dated 1/15/19 from Kenneth Williams, MA, MFT, who wrote that
the claimant suffers I'rom a delusional disorder, persecutory type. The letter stated, "Often, when someone has
a delusion they are reticent to talk to others about it and may avoid even people who can help them,
which
puts them at higher risk. Dr. Davis has been robbed at least three times in the past month while using, and I
believe his use has increased because of the delusions, Mr. Davis'iagnosis has him appear like the average
person, and other bizarre types of behavior will not be present, and his delusion can still be active and have a
negative impact on his life." Barnes also submitted medical documentation fiom 2015 and January 2019
documenting medication use to deal with the claimant's mental status.
This hearing officer called Mr. Williams on March 18, 2019, and Mmch 19, 2019, to get more information
about his letter and diagnosis, Mr. Williams contacted this hearing oflicer on 3/21/19 and reported the
following: the claimant's delusional disorder could prevent him from complying with program requirements,
This hearing officer. asked for this opinion in writing, and Williams stated he would provide this opinion in
writing and email to the fair hearing office on 3/21/19. This hearing officer waited until 3/22/1 9, but Williams
never submitted any additional evidence in writing to the fair hearing office.
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS:
Department Regulation under CAAP Eligibility Handbook Section 94-21 provides in relevant part that if a
client had previously provided a written statement regarding his income and/or assets (e.g., on a Statement of
Facts or a CAAP-1, Income and Asset Report), and such written statement did not include any or all (i.e.,
under-reported) of the income and/or assets now known to have been received by the client for the period in
question, contradictory evidence has been established. Whenever such contradictory evidence exists, the
failure is considered to have been willful and results in a discontinuance of aid for fraud. A failure is
considered negligent vvhenever it is the first discovery of unreported income and/or assets and there is no
contradictory evidence in the Case Record. A first discovery of unreported or under-reported income and/or
assets that is revealed by any means and for which there is no contradictory evidence is considered a negligent
failure, and is treated as a nonfrauduient overpayment. All second and subsequent discoveries of a client's not
Branden Davis
Case No. 1452847
whether or not fraud can
reporting income and/or assets„ including under-reporting, result in a negative action,
be established, even when no contradictory'vidence exists. Instances of second and subsequent discoveries
of income and/or assets that result in a fraud discontinuance include, but are not limited to; contradictory
evidence; or a discovery that is made through an IEVS report. When information is received regarding
utuepoited income and/or assets (that is a first instance) the CAAP Worker will take the following actions; 1,
Review the case for contradictory evidence; 2. Complete a Form 2175, First Unreported Income/Assets, to
advise the client that future instances of unreported income and/or assets may result in discontinuance,
Department regulation under CAAP Eligibility lqandbook Section 97-8 provides in relevant part
that fraud
to report facts required the PAES
occurs whenever a PAES stipend is obtained by intentional failure by
Ordinance. An example of obtaining a PAES Stipend by means of intentional failure to report facts required
is the failure to report income. Upon the first discontinuance of a PAES stipend within a 24-month period due
to false statement or representation or by impersonation or other fraudulent device,
or by intentional failure to
shall be
report facts required by the PAES Ordinance or Department regulations, an applicant or participant
unable to reapp
Preview
DONALD H. MEDEARIS, SBN 206849 PAUL SANDERSON-CIMINO, SBN 288157 ELECTRONICALLY MICHAF.I, D. IZEYS, SBN 133815 BAY AREA LL'GAL AID F I L E D 1800 Market Street, 3'loor Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco San Friuicisco, CA 94102 Tclcphonc: (415) 982-1300 01/07/2020 Fax: (415) 982-4243 Clerk of the Court BY: DAVID YUEN dmedearis@baylegal.org Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Petitioner, 7 BRANDFN DAVIS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COI)NTY 10 ) Case No. CPF-19-516718 BRANDEN DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner ) 13 ) FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT ) OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (CCP 14 vs ) tt 1094.5) AND ORDINARY MANDAMUS 15 ) (CCP tt1085 ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,) 16 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY ) AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY OF THE 18 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO/DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 19 SERVICFS, HUMAN SERVICFS COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND DOES 1-20 22 Respondents. 23 I. Introduction 24 1. This action challenges (I) Respondents'dministrative hearing decision affirming 25 Petitioner Brandon Davis's discontinuance Irom the San I"rancisco's County Adult 26 Assistance Programs ("CAAP") and a 60 day period of ineligibility (osanctionn) based 27 upon a determination that Mr. Davis committed program fiaud by not reporting 28 unemploymcnt benefits received while he was on CAAP and (2) Respondents'olicy 1 First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.8) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP li 1085); CPF-19-5(67(8 I and practice of issuing fraud sanctions for violations ol'program requirements 2 without determining whether the violation was "willful" or there was "good cause", as required by ihe governing law. 4 2. Respondents are violating their ministerial duty by enforcing a policy mid practice of 5 assessing such sanctions without any determination of whether ihe violations were 6 will f'ulor not. 7 3. Mr. Davis seeks an order of administrative mandate under Code ol'Civil Procedure 8 ("CCP") (1094.5 overturning his administrative hearing decision (Exhibit "A") on the 9 basis that the evidence shows that he did report the receipt of unemployment benefits 10 and that, even if a finding of not reporting could be made, the evidence shows there 11 was no intent io willfully fail to repoti the unemployment benefits. 12 4. Petitioner also seeks an order of'ordinary mandate pursuant to CCP I11085 requesting 14 the Court to order the County to cease their illegal policies and practices and conform 15 their policy with their legal duty to evaluate whether a CAAP recipient "willfully" 16 when determining whether to failed to comply with a program requirement 17 discontinue CAAP aid and impose a program sanction. 18 II. Parties 20 5. Petitioner Brandon Davis is a 48 year-old resident of San Francisco, California. 21 6, Prior to the county hearing decision that is the subject of this appeal, Petitioner Davis 22 received CAAP benefits starting November 2018. 23 7. Respondent Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco (" Board 24 25 of Supervisors" ) enacted ihe County Adult Assistance Programs at Chapter 20, 26 Article VII of thc Administrative Code of the City and County of San Francisco 27 ("CAAP Ordinance" ) to establish rules and requirements for the administration of aid 2 First Amended Petition for Writ of'Administrative Mandate (CCP sa 1094.51 and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP I 10858 CPF-19-516718 to the indigent and dcpcndent poor of the City and to adopt standards and conditions for such aid. (CAAP Ordinance 20.7-2.2, tjij 20.7-4a.). The Board of Supervisors has authority for establishing the policies under which CAAP is administcrcd and any cltanges may be tnade only upon its authorization. (CAAP Ordinance tjII20.7-5(a)). 8. Respondent Human Services Agency of thc City and County of San Francisco ("Departmen of Human Scrvicesn) is responsible for administering CAAP. (Administrative Code of the City & County of San Francisco, Chapter 20, Article I, II 20.1;1 CAAP Ordinance $ 20.7-5(b)). 10 9. Respondent Human Services Commission of the City and County of San Francisco provides oversight of'he Department of Human Services by approving the goals and 12 objectives as reflected in the annual budget, including goals and objectives of CAAP. 13 14 (Administrative Code ol'he City & County of San Francisco, Article IV, 4.111; I'1 see 15 also www.SFHSA.org). 16 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 17 of DOES I through 20 arc unknown to Petitioner, who therefore sucs these 19 Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based 20 upon such information and belief, allcges that at all times material herein each of the 21 DOE Respondents was an agent or employee of one or more of thc named 22 Respondents, and was acting within the course and scope ol'said agency or 23 employment. Petitioner is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, 25 that each of the DOF Respondents is legally responsible in some manner for the 26 occurrences herein alleged. All allegations in this Petition that refer to the named 27 Respondents refer in like mmmer to those Respondents idcntifted as Respondents 3 First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP sS1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss 1085); CPF-19-516718 DOES I through 20, inclusive. Petitioner will amend this Petition to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe Respondents when the same have been ascertained. III. Leual Framework A. San I rancisco's imnlementation of the County Adult Assistance Program 11. CAAP consists of tive separate aid programs, each providing assistance to a specific low-income population. At thc time of his discontinuance and sanction, Mr. Davis was receiving CAAP beneltts through its Personal Assisted Employment Services Program (PAES). (Sce Exhibit "A", page 1). 12. The other CAAP progrmns arc General Assistance, Cash Assistance Linked to Medi- 10 Cal, the Supplemental Security Income Pentling and I'amily General Relief. (CAAP Ordinance 1;20.7-2a). 12 13. Eligibility for CAAP must be determined under thc provisions of the CAAP 13 Ordinance and Respondent Department of Human Services regulations. (CAAP 14 Ordinance 5520.7-6(a)). 15 14. To be eligible for CAAP aid and services, an applicant or recipient must have 16 countable income and other property below CAAP's restrictive levels and comply 17 with other CAAP eligibility requirements. (CAAP Ordinance 5520.7-6). 15. CAAP beneltts must bc administered promptly and humanely, without discrimination on account of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or political sfliliaiion and so as to 20 secure 1'r every person the amount of aid to which s/he is entitled under the law, 21 (CAAP Manual, 5590-I, Administration of CAAP). 22 I3. Discontinuance of CAAP aid 23 24 16. CAAP recipients who fail to comply with ihe program's eligibility requirements may 25 have their aid decreased, withheld or discontinued pursuant to thc procedures and 26 provisions set out in California Welfare and Institutions Code (hereinafter, W& I C) 27 I I'I7001.5. (CAAP Ordinance, 5520.7-25 (a) and (b)). 4 I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss 1085); CPP-19-516718 17. No withholding, decrease or discontinuance ol aid shall occur unless the person to be 2 affected has been advised of the possibility of such action by means of a Notice of Proposed Action and has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing to dispute the proposed action. (CAAP Ordinance Id20.7-25b.), CAAP Assistance may only be discontinued or a sanction imposed where thc recipient's 1'ailurc or refusal was without good cause. (CAAP Ordinance, II20.7-25 (a) and (b); WXIC II1700L5 (a) 8 (5)) 18. Laclt of good cause may be demonstrated by a shoiving ol'willful failure or refusal of 10 the recipient to I'ollow program requirements. (WkIC II17001.5 (a) (5)). 11 19. A willful failure or refusal is defined as where a "recipient put3sosefully 12 13 (intentionally) did noi comply with program requirements and the circumstances were 14 within their control.*'A willful failure requires evidence that the failure to follow 15 and not done because of mistal&e or verilied inability or program rules was intentional 16 unintentional oversight ." (CAAP Fligibility Manual, 5590-6.1). 17 20. Good cause may also be shown by veri lied evidence of hospitalization, illness, incarceration, disability or other good cause. (CAAP Ordinance $ 20.7-29. 20 21. CAAP Ordinance ( 20.7-44 states that when it is determined that there was an 21 intentional false statement or failure to comply with program requirements the 22 applicant or recipient shall be ineligible for CAAP for a period of 30 days. A second 23 instance of an intentional false statement or failure to comply with program 24 requirements shall result in a 60 day sanction from eligibility. 25 26 22, Where the discontinuance is due to an alleged false statement, misrepresentation, or 27 intentional failiue or refusal to repori. required facts, Respondents have a ministerial 5 Irirsi Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandmnns (CCP lj 1085);CPF-19-516718 duty to determine whether good cause exists for that failure or refusal. (CAAP Ordinance ss 8520.7-25 (a) and (b), 20-7.29; Wtl'eIC. 1700 E5 I'1 (a) (5)). C. CAAP EliLihilitv Manual 23. The CAAP Eligibility Manual is Respondent's handbook explaining how Respondent implements thc various CAAP programs. It is available online at; https://wsawv,sfhsa.org/about/reports-publications/halldbool&s-manuals. 24. The hrst sentence of CAAP Fligibility Manual II94-21 states that a failure to report income by a CAAP recipient will not automatically result in a discontinuance ol'aid. The next two sentences state that a failure to include income in a written statement 10 about income or financial assets is considered to be a willful failure to report income and will result in a discontinuance ol'aid for fi aud. 12 25. The first time the Department of Human Services discovers unreported income, 13 assuming there was no failure to report income on a written statement, the CAAP 14 recipient's cash aid will continue, but the recipient will bc found overpaid. (CAAP 15 Eligibility Miuiual It94-21). 16 17 26. All second and subsequent discovcrics of unreported income result in a 18 there was discontinuance of aid whether or not fiaud can be established, even when 19 no 1'ailure to report income on a written statement. (CAAP Fligibility Manual I194-21). 20 21 22 D. Right to Anneal a CAAP Discontinuance or other Action 23 is dissatisfied with any actions 27. An applicant for or recipient of CAAP aid who relating to the withholding, decrease, denial, discontinuance, and/or recoupment of an 25 overpayment of aid shall be accorded a fair hearing upon filing a timely request. (CAAP Ordinance It20.7-45). 27 6 First /smendod Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP li 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP li 1085y CP1'-19-5 16718 28, The hearing decision shall be based solely upon evidcncc presented at the hearing and specifically state thc facts upon which it was based, the authority relied upon, and any other reasons for the decision, (CAAP Ordinance II20.7-53(a)). IV. Factual AlleLations 29. Mr. Davis received a monthly cash grant of F473 starting November 2018. 30. On January 2, 2019 Respondent Department of Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Action alleging that since he failed to report Unemployment Insurance benefits (UIB) received in November 2018 and December 2018, and because this was a second instance of failing to report income within 24 months, Mr. Davis's 10 CAAP/PAL'S cash aid would be discontinued effective January 31, 2019, and he would be ineligible to receive aid lor 60 days. 31. Mr. Davis appealed thc proposed action and a fair hearing was held on March 14, 13 2019. 14 32. At the hearing, Mr. Davis was represented by an advocate from Bay Area Legal Aid. 15 Respondents were represented by the County Eligibility Worker. 16 Mr. Davis testified, as pcr the audio recording of that hearing, tliat he talked to one of 17 the County workers, told the worker hc had a change ol address, that he was receiving 18 UIB, that the vvorker told him to report the change of address and UIB at his next 19 meeting, and that about a week later, hc got a letter about the discontinuance. Based 20 on iVIr. Davis's testimony, since the discontinuance notice vvas dated January 2, 2019, 21 Mr. Davis appears to have reported his receipt of UIB the last week of December 22 2018. 23 33. The hearing oflicer issued a decision dated March 22, 2019 upholding Respondent 24 Department of Human Service's decision to terminate Mr. Davis's aid and impose an 25 eligibility sanction based upon not reporting ihe UIB income. The hearing decision failed to make a determination of whether the Mr. Davis intentionally failed to report 27 the UIB income but instead held that his failure to report. 1JIB automatically resulted in a discontinuance of CAAP/PAES cash aid, 7 First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinmy Mandamus (CCP tJ 1085); CPF-19-516718 I 34. Thc March 22, 2019 CAAP hearing decision is attached as Exhibit A and is 2 incorporated by reference. V. Claims for Relief A. First Cause of Action: A&lministrative Mandamus (CCP 8 1094.5) 7 35. Petitioner re-allcges and incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 34 above. 36. Respondent's hearing decision is arbitrary, capricious and not supported by the evidence. The uncontested hearing testimony was that Petitioner did tell a CAAP 10 v'orker about his 1JII3, but the worker told him to wait until his next meeting to report 12 13 37, Respondent's hearing decision is contrary to San Fran&:isco CAAP Ordinance 14 follow the requirements sSII20.7-44 and 20.7-25b. because the hearing officer failed to 15 of Wd8IC 17001.5(a)(5) and determine whether Mr, Davis intentionally failed to 16 rcpots the UII3 or had good cause for not reporting the income before discontinuing 17 18 cash aid. In Mr. Davis's case, he did not willfully fail to report but reported the 19 income directly to a CAAP worl&er. Any failure to follow CAAP's reporting 20 procedures should be excused on thc ground of good cause because Mr. Davis 21 accepted the CAAP worker's instruction to rcport at the next meeting. 22 38. CAAP Eligibility Manual I'I98-5 authorixes thc appeal to the San Francisco Superior 23 24 Court for review of Respondents'dministrative hearing decision by means of a writ 25 of mandamus per CCP 881094.5, without payment of any fees or cost. 26 39. Petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 27 law. 28 8 First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ) 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss 1085); C PF- I 9-5167 1 8 40. Petitioner therefore requests Respondents'earing decision be reversed and thc Petitioner be 1'ound eligible for PAES benefits for the months of November 2018 through January 2019 and for any sanction period months in which hc received no CAAP/PAES bcncfits. B. Second Cause of Action: Ordinate Mandamus (Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. 8 1085) 41. Petitioner rc-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 above. 42. Respondents have a duty to administer the CAAP cash aid beneliis, including PAFS cash aid, in conformity with the requirements ol'CAAP Ordinance II( 20.7-44 and 10 20.7-25b., but Respondents have adopted a practice ol'violating this duty by discontinuing CAAP recipients, including PAES recipients, without making a 12 dctcnnination of whether a recipient made a false statemeni or intentionally failed to 13 14 report facts, including the receipt of other income, before discontinuing cash aid. 15 43. Respondents'llegal practice is sct forth in CAAP Eligibility Manual Section ss94-21, 16 which states that "all second and subsequent discoveries of a client's not reporting 17 income result in a negative action, whether or not li'aud can be established, even when no contradictory evidence exists." 20 44. Respondents'ractice violates their duty to administer CAAP, including PARS, in 21 20.7-44 and 20.7-25 b and conformity with the requirements of CAAP Ordinance IIsS 22 to make a determination of whether a failure was willful or with good cause, as 23 required by sJ/d'sIC III7001.5(a)(5), 24 45, Petitioner laclis a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law except by way of 25 peremptory writ ol'mandate pursuant to CCP II1085. 26 27 28 9 I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP $ 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ss 10115); CPP-I 9-5167111 46. Petitioner thcreforc requests the Court order the County to cease their illegal policies 2 and practices and conform their policy and CAAP Eligibility Manual II94-21 with 3 CAAP Ordinance II5520.7-44 and 20.7-25b and W /tt IC 5517001.5 (a) (5) 5 47. Petitioner also requests the Court order Respondents to undo any sanctions already 6 imposed under their illegal policy and practice. 7 VI. Relief Reauested 10 Petitioner seeks the I'ollowing rclicfi 48. A writ of administrative mandate voiding Respondents'earing decision as to 12 Petitioner Davis and directing Respondents to issue a new hearing decision lmding 13 the Petitioner eligible for CAAP/PAES benefits for thc months of November 2018 14 15 through January 2019 and directing Respondents to provide Mr. Davis with 16 CAAP/PAES benefits for those months and for any sanction months during which he 17 received no CAAP/PAFS benefits. 18 49. A writ of ordinary mandate ordering Respondents to cease their illegal policies and 19 practices and conform their policy and CAAP Eligibility Manual Ij 94-21 with CAAP 21 Ordinance IIS520.7-44 and 20.7-25b and W & IC Ij17001.5 (a) (5). 50. Award Petitioner attomcy*s fees under Cal CCP 551021.5. 23 51. Order such other relief as the Court may dccm just and proper. 24 25 Dated:~!w 'a ~ra I ~/ Donald H. Medearis 10 I'irst Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) and Ordinary Mandannis (CCP I 1085); CPI'-19-516718 Paul Sanderson Cimino Michael D. 1(eys Attorneys f'r Petitioner Branden Davis Declaration of Brandcn Davis I, thc undersigned, declare: 8 That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled action that I have reviewed the 9 foregoing First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and Ordinary 10 Mandamus to me, that I certify that the factual allegations contained thcrcin are true to the 12 best of my Icnowledge. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Calif'ornia that the 14 foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed on 12-1 54 24'1~, 2019 in San Francisco, California. 16 17 18 Branden Davis 19 20 /// 21 /// 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 11 First Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (CCP ss 1094.5) mtd Ordinary Mandamus (CCP ff 10115); CPF-19-5167 18 City and Cottnty of san IFfanoiisco London Breed, Mayor Department of Human Services Department of Aging and Adult Services Trent Rhorer, Executive Director CASE NUMBER: 1452847 WORKER: Steven Ching WORKER NUMBER: U449 BRANDEN DAVIS PROGRAM: PAES 175 6'" Street, ¹327 REQUEST DATE: 2/14/19 San Francisco, CA 94103 EFF. DATE OF ACTION: I/31/19 HEARING DATE: 3/14/19 DECISION DATE: 3/22/19 As the CAAP Fair Hearing Officer, I have weighed all the evidence and statements of fact presented at the hearing in question. I find that the initial decision by the Department of Human Services: [X] Was Correct Aid Paid Pending Collectible: [ ] Should be reversed. [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Not Applicable Reasons for the decision: ISSUE; Whether the county correctly proposed to discontinue the claimant's PAES snpend effective I/31/19 because ihe claimant failed to repoit unemployment benefits from November 28, 2018 ($ 91.00); December 7, 2018 ($ 182.00); and December 16, 2018 ($182.00), The proposed discontinuance was for a second fraud instance within 24 months with a 60-day sanction from the PAES progrmn, COUNTY'S POSITION: Steven Ching (¹U449), the claimant's current Eligibility Worker, was the county representative who initiated the proposed negative action at issue in this case and testified as follows. Also present was the claimant's authorized representative, Ms, Sabrina Banies, fiom Bay Area Legal Aid. On 10/6/15, the county informed the claiinant that he failed to report earnings from work at Acrobtat on 8/15/I 5 and 9/15/15. At that time he was counseled that any further instances of uiueported income could be treated as fraud. The claimant was advised of this fact via Form 2175, First Unreported Income/Asseis/Duplicate Aid. Ching also reported that he claimant was discontinued from aid in 7/11/17 for fraud. On 12/31/18, the county rec'eived an IEVES report indicating that the claimant was receiving unemployment benefits in the amounts of $ 91.00 (November 28, 2018); $ 192.00 (December 7, 2018 and December 16, 2018). The report further indicated that the claimant was entitled to $ 91.00 per week until a remaining balance of $ 884,00 in benefits was exhausted. Ching P,O, Box?988, San Francisco, CA 94120-7988 (4151 557-5000~www.sfgov.orgldns Branden Davis Case No, 1452847 reported that because the claimant had not reported this income, and since this was the second time that the —FRA IJD Discontinuance. claimant failed to report income, he sent Form 2160, Notice of Proposed Action This Fotrn 2160 was submitted during the hearing and informed the claimant that his PAES stipend would be discontinued effective 1/31/19 because the claimant had "unearned income that you did not report to CAAP in a timely manner." Ching also submitted into evidence the claimant's Form 2139A, Employability Consultation, dated 2/20/19, indicating that the claimant was found to be unemployable due to a disabling condition that has lasted or will last for 12 months or more and continues to exist, and that he may be SSI eligible. This evaluation was performed by Kevin Heancy, LCSW. On 3/18/19, this hearing officer contacted Mr. Heaney to inquire about the case. Mr. Heaney reported that in his opinion, the claimant suffers fiom delusional disorder, but that this disorder does not "rise to the level to prevent him from complying with program requirements," CLAIMANT'S POSITION: The claimant appeared and gave the following testimony with the assistance of Ms. Ba'mes. He stated that he did report the unemployment benefits and that the county knew about it. FIe did not recall who he reported this income to. Barnes submitted a letter dated 1/15/19 from Kenneth Williams, MA, MFT, who wrote that the claimant suffers I'rom a delusional disorder, persecutory type. The letter stated, "Often, when someone has a delusion they are reticent to talk to others about it and may avoid even people who can help them, which puts them at higher risk. Dr. Davis has been robbed at least three times in the past month while using, and I believe his use has increased because of the delusions, Mr. Davis'iagnosis has him appear like the average person, and other bizarre types of behavior will not be present, and his delusion can still be active and have a negative impact on his life." Barnes also submitted medical documentation fiom 2015 and January 2019 documenting medication use to deal with the claimant's mental status. This hearing officer called Mr. Williams on March 18, 2019, and Mmch 19, 2019, to get more information about his letter and diagnosis, Mr. Williams contacted this hearing oflicer on 3/21/19 and reported the following: the claimant's delusional disorder could prevent him from complying with program requirements, This hearing officer. asked for this opinion in writing, and Williams stated he would provide this opinion in writing and email to the fair hearing office on 3/21/19. This hearing officer waited until 3/22/1 9, but Williams never submitted any additional evidence in writing to the fair hearing office. APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS: Department Regulation under CAAP Eligibility Handbook Section 94-21 provides in relevant part that if a client had previously provided a written statement regarding his income and/or assets (e.g., on a Statement of Facts or a CAAP-1, Income and Asset Report), and such written statement did not include any or all (i.e., under-reported) of the income and/or assets now known to have been received by the client for the period in question, contradictory evidence has been established. Whenever such contradictory evidence exists, the failure is considered to have been willful and results in a discontinuance of aid for fraud. A failure is considered negligent vvhenever it is the first discovery of unreported income and/or assets and there is no contradictory evidence in the Case Record. A first discovery of unreported or under-reported income and/or assets that is revealed by any means and for which there is no contradictory evidence is considered a negligent failure, and is treated as a nonfrauduient overpayment. All second and subsequent discoveries of a client's not Branden Davis Case No. 1452847 whether or not fraud can reporting income and/or assets„ including under-reporting, result in a negative action, be established, even when no contradictory'vidence exists. Instances of second and subsequent discoveries of income and/or assets that result in a fraud discontinuance include, but are not limited to; contradictory evidence; or a discovery that is made through an IEVS report. When information is received regarding utuepoited income and/or assets (that is a first instance) the CAAP Worker will take the following actions; 1, Review the case for contradictory evidence; 2. Complete a Form 2175, First Unreported Income/Assets, to advise the client that future instances of unreported income and/or assets may result in discontinuance, Department regulation under CAAP Eligibility lqandbook Section 97-8 provides in relevant part that fraud to report facts required the PAES occurs whenever a PAES stipend is obtained by intentional failure by Ordinance. An example of obtaining a PAES Stipend by means of intentional failure to report facts required is the failure to report income. Upon the first discontinuance of a PAES stipend within a 24-month period due to false statement or representation or by impersonation or other fraudulent device, or by intentional failure to shall be report facts required by the PAES Ordinance or Department regulations, an applicant or participant unable to reapp