Opinion
B312692
12-02-2022
BELINDA C. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner and Appellant, v. WILL LIGHTBOURNE et al., Respondents.
Belinda C. Muhammad, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown and Benjamin G. Diehl, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, and Michael E. Byerts, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCP03992, Mary Strobel, Judge. Affirmed.
Belinda C. Muhammad, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown and Benjamin G. Diehl, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, and Michael E. Byerts, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents.
BAKER, J.
Petitioner and appellant Belinda Muhammad (Muhammad) challenges a decision by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to recover $16,351 from the Social Security Administration to repay funds Muhammad received in cash benefits and housing assistance. Muhammad contends part or all of her housing subsidy was funded by the federal government and thus does not consist of "interim assistance" that the County of Los Angeles (the County) was entitled to recover. We consider whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that the County was indeed the source of Muhammad's housing subsidy and thus properly recovered the funds.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Housing Subsidy Project
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services' (DPSS') General Relief Housing Subsidy and Case Management Project (the Project) provides a rent subsidy to homeless individuals who meet specified criteria. When Project participants secure Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from the Social Security Administration, the County recovers the funds it previously provided to the participant via the Interim Assistance Reimbursement (IAR) process.
"Interim assistance means assistance the State gives you [an SSI recipient], including payments made on your behalf to providers of goods or services, to meet your basic needs, beginning with the first month for which you are eligible for payment of SSI benefits and ending with, and including, the month your SSI payments begin .... Interim assistance does not include assistance payments financed wholly or partly with Federal funds." (20 C.F.R. § 416.1902.)
Los Angeles County's "Approved Strategies to Combat Homelessness," issued in February 2016, describes different strategies to provide subsidized housing to homeless, disabled individuals pursuing SSI. The document identifies sources of funding to support these strategies, including IAR from the Social Security Administration. The strategy document explains "[a]gencies that provide basic needs for eligible participants using non-federal dollars are eligible to collect IAR if the individual is subsequently approved for SSI." It further states that "[f]or individuals who receive GR [General Relief] while their SSI application is pending, the County already recovers IAR for the $221 monthly GR grant. Additionally, for GR participants receiving a GR rental subsidy, the County recovers $400 per month for that subsidy."
In a section specifically discussing potential expansion of the Project, the strategy document states the County could allocate additional funding to expand the Project and recommends the County direct DPSS to enhance and expand the program, including by increasing the housing subsidy it provides. The document also discusses sources of funding for the recommended expansion of the Project and identifies redirection of available funds from the General Relief Mandatory Substance Use Disorder Recovery Program and Interim Assistance Reimbursement for individuals approved for SSI.
B. Muhammad's Receipt of Aid
During the relevant time period, Muhammad signed a "GR Housing Subsidy [and] Case Management Project" Agreement.Muhammad initialed a statement on the form that said, "I understand that when I am approved for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits[,] DPSS will deduct all GR Housing Subsidies paid by DPSS from my initial SSI check." She also initialed statements acknowledging she understood the "Direct Rent process": her share of rent would be deducted from her general relief cash grant and DPSS would pay a rent subsidy (of up to $400) directly to her landlord.
Muhammad signed the agreements in August 2014 and May 2016.
Muhammad also signed a form authorizing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reimburse the State of California for some or all of the money the State gave her while the Social Security Administration was deciding if she was eligible to receive SSI/State Supplementary Payment (SSP) benefits. The form stated that if Muhammad became eligible, the Social Security Administration would pay the state from the retroactive SSI/SSP benefits due to Muhammad. The reimbursement would cover the time from the first month she was eligible to receive SSI/SSP benefits through the first month her monthly benefit would begin.
Muhammad appears to have signed the form in November 2012, though she would later dispute that date. Muhammad signed similar forms in November 2014, November 2015, and October 2016.
During the period spanning May 1, 2014 through October 31, 2017, Muhammad received General Relief benefits and General Relief housing subsidies. Muhammad received $221 in General Relief payments, $100 of which was paid directly to her landlord as a partial rent payment. A $400 housing subsidy was paid to her landlord to cover the rest of her rent. An IAR detail sheet listed six paid entries that were for "direct rent," and one cancelled entry for "direct rent."
Muhammad applied for SSI in 2014. Her application was approved in 2017, and she was granted retroactive eligibility back to May 1, 2014. In January 2018, CDSS notified Muhammad that it billed the Social Security Administration $16,351: the amount of Muhammad's interim assistance for May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2017. Muhammad requested a hearing to challenge the County's action, and a hearing was held in July 2018.
C. The Administrative Hearing
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presided over the hearing. The County was represented by Marlene Aleman-Zuniga, who testified on its behalf. Aleman-Zuniga confirmed, after consulting with DPSS' fiscal department, that the program in which Muhammad participated used County funds. Aleman-Zuniga testified, however, that where the County records used the term "direct rent," the amount listed was "federal funds" and was not recouped. Muhammad asserted that she received receipts from the County that reflect "direct rent" payments every month, but did not have any such documents with her at the hearing. Aleman-Zuniga stated she could not explain what Muhammad's rent receipt showed.
She also stated all items other than "direct rent" were paid for with County funds.
After the July 2018 hearing, the ALJ left the record open to allow the County and Muhammad to submit additional evidence and for the County to respond to outstanding questions. The County submitted a letter to the ALJ with further information and accompanying documents. In the letter, Aleman-Zuniga stated she did not recall saying "direct rent" indicated the use of federal funds. Muhammad did not submit additional evidence.
The ALJ issued a decision finding the County correctly billed and received $16,351 from the Social Security Administration to repay the amount Muhammad received from the Project from May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2017. The ALJ found in pertinent part that Muhammad received a housing subsidy funded through the Project during the pertinent time, and the Project was funded by the County. The ALJ based the latter finding on the Strategies to Combat Homelessness document, which indicated the County funded the Project, and the lack of evidence supporting Muhammad's contention that the housing subsidies were federally funded. It also found Muhammad received notice the County was billing the Social Security Administration to repay the amount of her interim assistance. The ALJ calculated the amounts recouped by the County and concluded they were correct. The ALJ further found Muhammad had signed an authorization allowing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reimburse the state. The ALJ's decision also reasoned that the "direct rent" that appeared on the IAR report reflected the $100 per month payment of Muhammad's General Relief funds paid directly to her landlord.
In September 2018, the California Department of Social Services adopted the ALJ's decision as its final decision.
D. Muhammad Files a Petition for Writ of Mandate 1. The petition and briefing
Muhammad filed a petition for writ of mandate in September 2019, naming CDSS and its current and prior Directors, Kimberly Johnson and Will Lightbourne, as respondents. As pertinent to this appeal, the petition alleged the ALJ's finding that Muhammad received $16,351 in non-federal funds from the County during the period spanning April 2014 through October 2017 was unsupported by evidence in the record. Muhammad asked the court to issue a writ of mandate commanding respondents to rescind the decision.
In her opening brief in support of the petition, Muhammad argued that, contrary to the administrative judge's findings, there was evidence in the record that her subsidy had not been fully funded by the County and she had instead received some federal funds (and therefore the County could not recoup funds from the Social Security Administration). Muhammad pointed to the portion of the administrative hearing transcript during which Aleman-Zuniga stated "direct rent" references on the County records signified the use of federal funds.
Respondent filed a brief arguing the housing subsidies were county funds and Muhammad had not provided any evidence to the contrary. It further argued that the direct rent payments were not federal funds and, in any event, the County was not seeking to recover those funds.
Muhammad's reply brief asserted she had produced several county receipts that bore the notation "direct rent." Those do not appear in the administrative record.
2. The trial court denies the petition
The trial court exercised its independent judgment in considering Muhammad's claim that CDSS improperly recouped federal funds and found it did not.
The court discussed the evidence presented in the administrative hearing, and found the weight of the evidence supported the ALJ's findings. Specifically, the court concluded the "Approved Strategies to Combat Homelessness" document strongly suggests the General Relief Housing Subsidy and Case Management Project that Muhammad participated in was funded by the County. The court relied in particular on statements in the document that recommend the County direct DPSS to expand the Project by increasing the maximum rent subsidy, state the County would provide specific amounts of funding through the Project, and plan to recover the amount of the subsidy from retroactive SSI benefits from those participants who secure SSI. The court found the most reasonable interpretation of the document was that the Project was funded by the County, not the federal government because the document provides that "'the County recovers the full amount of the rental subsidy[,]'" which the County could only do if the rental subsidies were funded by the state or county. The court also believed the Project Fact Sheet, which "appear[ed] to have been prepared by the County of Los Angeles [DPSS,]" corroborated the finding that the General Relief Project was a County-funded program. The court further reasoned the various agreements and forms Muhammad signed supported the finding that Muhammad participated in the Project.
The court also observed Muhammad's failure to produce any evidence demonstrating the subsidies were federally funded, including the receipts she referred to at the hearing, also supported the ALJ's findings.
The trial court emphasized that the ALJ did not rely on or credit Aleman-Zuniga's testimony regarding the meaning of the "direct rent" notation in some of the records in reaching a decision. The court believed Aleman-Zuniga's testimony about "direct rent" merited little weight because "she did not appear particularly knowledgeable" about the issue herself. The court stated the ALJ was not required to credit Aleman-Zuniga's testimony regarding direct ren, and could properly consider the extent to which it was inconsistent with documentary evidence- and give more weight to that documentary evidence. The court also found the weight of Muhammad's testimony about direct rent was undercut by her failure to submit any evidence or the receipts she mentioned in her testimony.
The trial court entered judgment for defendants in March 2021.
II. DISCUSSION
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's ruling. The record contains evidence that the Project in which Muhammad participated was financed with County funds. Muhammad's arguments to the contrary, which seek reversal based on the contention that there is also substantial evidence the funds are federal funds, are unavailing under the governing standard of review.
"In reviewing an agency's factual findings in cases (such as this) involving a fundamental right, a trial court '"exercises its independent judgment upon the evidence."' [Citations.] This means that a trial court determines whether the agency's findings are supported by the 'weight of the evidence.' [Citations.] On appeal, the appellate court reviews the trial court's findings for substantial evidence. [Citations.]" (Crooks v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 893, 900-901; see also Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130, 143144.) "'Substantial evidence must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion.'" (South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 291, 303.)
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the County was the source of the funds provided to Muhammad. The documents in the record describing the Project and other strategies to combat homelessness indicated the County provided the funds for the Project and made no reference to federal funds (other than the reimbursements for interim assistance). Aleman-Zuniga also testified, albeit with some marginal ambiguity that (as explained post) does not affect our analysis, that the program Muhammad participated in was county-funded.
Muhammad, however, emphasizes one snippet of Aleman-Zuniga's testimony: the statement that the "direct rent" entry in County records reflects the use of federal funds. But that testimony is contradicted by the document Muhammad herself signed, which stated the term "direct rent" referred to the $100 from her General Relief payments that was transferred directly to her landlord. Our review is for substantial evidence. Accordingly, we accept the documentary evidence that supports the trial court's ruling, and conclude reliance on one aspect of Aleman-Zuniga's testimony does not merit reversal.
Aleman-Zuniga limited her testimony to the County documents she presented and stated she could not testify regarding the language on Muhammad's receipts (which were, again, not presented to the ALJ or included in the record). Even if we treated the portion of Aleman-Zuniga's testimony about "direct rent" as controlling notwithstanding the substantial evidence standard of review, reversal still would be unwarranted because Los Angeles County (via CDSS) did not attempt to recoup the assistance payments for which the "direct rent" notation appeared on the pertinent payment records.
Muhammad's remaining arguments, which largely identify individual statements made in the trial court's ruling and contend they do not address whether her assistance payments were financed wholly with County funds, do not negate the evidence in the record that supports the trial court's ruling.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.
We concur: RUBIN, P. J. MOOR, J.