California Department of Social Services - State Hearings Division
Notes from the Training Bureau - February 28, 1997

In three recent cases, claimants requested rehearings to dispute a Judge’s decision dismissing as untimely a hearing request on an AFDC overpayment or Food Stamp overissuance issue. The Legal Division granted a rehearing in each case because the notice of action failed to include language advising the claimant that this was the last chance to request a hearing and that if the claimant went off aid, the county might intercept the state tax refund.

In Anderson v. McMahon, Case No. 620039-4, Alameda County Superior Court, the court determined that all AFDC and food stamps notices of action concerning overpayments or overissuances must include substantially the following language:

(See also CDSS All County Letter No. 90-14, and Pararegs 004-13 and 201-14)

Judges are advised to carefully review all AFDC overpayment and food stamp overissuance notices to determine if this language or substantially similar language is included on a notice advising the claimant of an overpayment or overissuance. This language is not required on subsequent notices seeking to recoup the overpayment or overissuance via grant adjustment, allotment adjustment, or demand for repayment, if such language was on the initial notice. If such language is not included on the initial notice, that notice is not a legally adequate notice. Any hearing request filed on such legally inadequate notice would be a timely hearing request. Counties would have to present evidence on the substantive issue or issues.

The Anderson language is required only on AFDC and Food Stamp cases, not on Medi-Cal cases, cases involving overpayments for GAIN, IHSS, child care or other programs. Counties are only required to include this language in the initial notice advising the individual of the amount, cause, and time period for the overpayment/overissuance. However, if the notice includes this language, the notice must still meet all other adequate notice requirements. (see MPP §22-001(a)(1), and Pararegs 004-2, 201-4, and 201-12)

Counties must issue one overpayment and/or one overissuance notice that is otherwise legally adequate and includes the Anderson language. It is not sufficient for the county to issue two or more notices that in combination meet Anderson and adequate notice requirements.

The stipulation and entry for final judgment on Anderson was filed on August 22, 1989. The stipulation and entry for final judgment requires the counties to include the warning language on all applicable overpayment and overissuance notices of action no later than 120 days from the August 22, 1989 date. The state issued such notices to the counties effective January 1, 1990.

The warning language is required on all applicable overpayment and overissuance notices effective January 1, 1990.