R.M. VS. SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5324-18T2
R.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted November 5, 2020 – Decided December 4, 2020
Before Judges Fuentes and Firko.
On appeal from the Somerset County Board of Social
Services, Docket No. 05296-19.
R.M., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; James A. McGhee, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner R.M. appeals from the June 27, 2019 final agency decision of
respondent Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Family
Development (DFD), which affirmed the decision of respondent Somerset
County Board of Social Services (SCBSS) to terminate R.M.'s emergency
assistance benefits (EA) in the form of temporary rental assistance (TRA). We
affirm.
In November 2018, R.M. began receiving benefits from SCBSS housing
assistance, and he signed an EA service plan, which was effective until May
2019. As a condition to receiving benefits, R.M. was required to apply for
Section 8 housing and conduct five affordable housing searches every week. By
executing the EA service plan, R.M. acknowledged that "failure to participate
in any of the activities [he] ha[s]agreed to in this [service plan], including
housing/employment searches as required, may affect [his] eligibility for [EA]."
On March 28, 2019, R.M. filed an application for an EA hardship
extension because he alleged he lost or was in immediate danger of losing a bona
fide offer of employment. The next day, March 29, 2019, R.M. was notified that
his EA housing benefits would be terminated as of May 1, 2019, because he
failed to comply with his service plan. The SCBSS determined that R.M. was
A-5324-18T2
2
not in "danger of losing employment" because he was offered another position
with his then current employer, Path Stone.
At R.M.'s request, the matter was transferred to the Office of
Administrative Law for a hearing as a contested case. R.M. and a social worker
from SCBSS testified at the hearing. In his testimony, R.M. admitted that he
did not supply the housing search logs. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued an Initial Decision finding R.M. had not complied with the terms of his
service plan to seek permanent housing, and he failed to demonstrate hardship
because he was offered a new position at work. The ALJ recommended
termination of R.M.'s EA benefits under N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.6 and denial of the
extreme hardship extension. On June 27, 2019, DFD issued a Final Agency
Decision adopting the ALJ's decision. Thus, R.M. was no longer eligible for EA
and was ineligible for an EA extreme hardship extension. This appeal followed.
Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited.
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). We will reverse an agency's decision
if we find it is "'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or . . . not supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ibid. (quoting Henry v.
Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
A-5324-18T2
3
In determining whether agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable, we must examine:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or
implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency
follow the law;
(2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to
support the findings on which the agency based its
action; and
(3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the
facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion
that could not reasonably have been made on a showing
of the relevant factors.
[Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191
N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).]
We "'may not substitute [our] own judgment for the agency's, even though
[we] might have reached a different result.'" Ibid. (quoting Carter, 191 N.J. at
483). "This is particularly true when the issue under review is directed to the
agency's special 'expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field.'" Id. at
195 (quoting In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)). Furthermore, "[i]t is
settled that '[a]n administrative agency's interpretation of statutes and
regulations within its implementing and enforcing responsibility is ordin arily
entitled to our deference.'" E.S. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs.,
412 N.J. Super. 340, 355 (App. Div. 2010) (second alteration in original)
A-5324-18T2
4
(quoting Wnuck v. N.J. Div. Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div.
2001)).
"Nevertheless, 'we are not bound by the agency's legal opinions.'" A.B.
v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 407 N.J. Super. 330, 340 (App. Div.
2009) (quoting Levine v. State Dep't of Transp., 338 N.J. Super. 28, 32 (App.
Div. 2001)). "Statutory and regulatory construction is a purely legal issue
subject to de novo review. Ibid. (citation omitted). Applying these standards,
we discern no reason to disturb the Director's decision.
Receipt of EA is limited to a maximum of twelve lifetime months.
N.J.S.A. 44:10-51(a); N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.4(a). A six-month extension may be
granted in cases of extreme hardship where the recipient has taken "all
reasonable steps to resolve the emergent situation but the emergency nonetheless
continues or a new emergency occurs, which causes extreme hardship to the
family." N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.4(b); see also N.J.S.A. 44:10-51(a)(2). Examples of
extreme hardship are: (1) the danger of loss of employment or a bona fide offer
of employment by a recipient adult; (2) the recipient adult is in imminent
physical danger; (3) the danger of serious harm to persons who are
clinically/medically diagnosed as mentally and/or physically incapable of caring
for themselves, thereby possibly leading to inpatient hospital care or
A-5324-18T2
5
institutionalization; or (4) the request for additional EA arises directly out of a
substantial loss of shelter, food, clothing, household furnishings and/or essential
utilities incurred as a result of a natural disaster. N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.4(b)(1)(i)-
(v).
DFD found that R.M. failed to complete the affordable housing searches
by March 2019 as required by his service plan, and he was "gainfully employed
as of April 10, 2019." Accordingly, R.M. was not entitled to an extreme
hardship extension of EA. Therefore, R.M.'s benefits were properly terminated
under N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.6.
Because R.M. failed to engage in housing searches as required by his
service plan, and since he was not in danger of losing employment, he was no
longer entitled to receive EA. He also failed to satisfy the criteria for extreme
hardship. We are satisfied that the Director's decision was supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record, and it is not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-5324-18T2
6