Opinion
Argued November 15, 1982
May 13, 1983.
Public assistance — Scope of appellate review — Substantial evidence.
1. Review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania of an adjudication of the Department of Public Welfare terminating public assistance eligibility is limited to determining whether the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence or is contrary to law, and whether the recipient's constitutional rights were violated; substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [304]
Argued November 15, 1982, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1079 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Department of Public Welfare in the case of Appeal of: Ms. Janice Visconto, No. 920 503 C.
Public assistance discontinued by the Philadelphia County Assistance Office. Recipient appealed to the Department of Public Welfare. Appeal denied. Recipient appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Stephen F. Gold, for petitioner.
Catherine Stewart, Assistant Counsel, for respondent.
Janice Visconto appeals a Department of Public Welfare (DPW) order dismissing her appeals. We affirm.
The Philadelphia County Board of Assistance terminated Visconto's benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC) after Visconto failed to provide information re-establishing her eligibility. She was notified that she could appeal the termination within thirty days. She subsequently reapplied for, and received, benefits which were again terminated under similar circumstances. The DPW hearing officer dismissed her appeals as being untimely filed and rejected her assertion that the Board had lost previously-filed appeals. DPW affirmed.
Our review of a DPW adjudication is limited to determining whether the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence or is contrary to law, and whether the appellant's constitutional rights have been violated. Montgomery County Child Welfare Services v. Hull, 51 Pa. Commw. 1, 413 A.2d 757 (1980) (citing the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. § 704). "Substantial evidence" is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Gibson v. Department of Public Welfare, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct 27, 384 A.2d 1030 (1978).
Visconto argues that the hearing examiner's determination that her appeals were untimely is not supported by substantial evidence. Based on our review of the record, however, we disagree. Although Visconto did present evidence to the contrary, this merely raises questions of the credibility and weight to be accorded the respective evidence, questions which only the Department can resolve. See Department of Health v. Howell, 24 Pa. Commw. 42, 354 A.2d 21 (1976).
The evidence essentially consisted of testimony by Board employees that no record of a timely, perfected appeal existed.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the Department of Public Welfare in No. 920 503 C, dated April 1, 1980, is hereby affirmed.