SC Administrative Law Court Decisions
CAPTION:
Shawn Drawdy vs. SCDHHS |
AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services |
PARTIES:
Appellant:
Shawn Drawdy
Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services |
| |
DOCKET NUMBER:
05-ALJ-08-0090-CC |
APPEARANCES:
n/a |
| |
ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Shawn Drawdy,
Appellant,
vs.
South Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services,
Respondent.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Docket No. 05-ALJ-08-0090-CC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
Shawn Drawdy (Drawdy) seeks benefits from Medicaid under the Aged, Blind or
Disabled (ABD) program. Having no success in pressing a claim before the South
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Drawdy now brings this
matter on appeal to the Administrative Law Court (ALC).
In response to the appeal, HHS filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the ALC lacks
jurisdiction since Drawdy presented the same claim to the Social Security Administration
(SSA) and that body denied the benefits requested. Given such facts, I conclude
jurisdiction is lacking in the ALC and that Drawdy’s appeal must be dismissed.
HHS is not free to disregard disability determinations made by the SSA. Rather, when
SSA has made a determination of no disability, HHS may not make an independent
finding on that same issue since the SSA determination is binding on HHS. 42 CFR §
435.541(b)(1)(I). See Sebastian v. Commissioner of Human Services, 1993 WL 642701
(M.D.Tenn. 1993) ("Specifically, if the Social Security Administration (SSA) has made a
determination of non-disability for SSI benefits purposes, then the state agency must
defer to this decision and cannot redetermine Medicaid eligibility on disability."). Indeed,
these same federal regulations have been judged to show an intent "that the federal
agency's determination of nondisability supersedes [even] a previous state agency
determination of disability." Disabled Rights Union v. Kizer 744 F.Supp. 221 (Cal.
1990).
Thus, since Drawdy presented the same claim to the Social Security Administration
(SSA) and that body denied the benefits requested, the federal regulations deny the state
the decision making authority in the instant case.
THEREFORE, this matter must be dismissed due to controlling federal regulations.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
______________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: March 29, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
|
