## Facts

- Josephine Augelli received cash assistance and food stamps for herself and one child in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
- The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) received information suggesting Josephine’s husband, Frank Augelli, was living in her household.
- DPW discontinued Josephine’s benefits on the ground that she failed to verify information needed to determine eligibility—specifically, Frank’s income, which DPW treated as required for food-stamp eligibility if he was a household member.
- Josephine appealed and a fair hearing was held.
- At the hearing, Josephine and two of her children testified that Frank did not live with them.
- The witnesses also testified that Frank refused to disclose where he lived when asked.
- DPW presented documentary items pointing toward Josephine’s address as Frank’s address, including:
  - A letter from Frank stating he did not live with Josephine, but giving no other address;
  - Newspaper announcements related to the couple’s daughter (engagement and wedding) listing both parents at the address; and
  - A driving record listing Frank’s address as the same address.
- The hearing examiner credited Josephine’s testimony and the corroborating testimony of her children and found as a fact that Frank did not reside in Josephine’s home.
- The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals adopted the hearing examiner’s decision in Josephine’s favor.
- The local County Assistance Office requested reconsideration by the Secretary of Public Welfare.
- On reconsideration, the Secretary reversed, concluding Josephine failed to meet her burden because she did not produce documentary evidence establishing that Frank lived at some other address.
- Josephine appealed the Secretary’s final order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of Public Welfare could overturn the hearing examiner’s finding that Frank did not reside in Josephine’s household when that finding was supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether DPW could treat the absence of documentary evidence of Frank’s alternate address as a legal failure of proof that he was not a household resident, despite credited testimony of nonresidency.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court reversed DPW’s final order denying benefits.
- The court held that the hearing examiner’s finding that Frank did not live with Josephine was supported by substantial evidence and should not have been set aside by the Secretary.
- The court rejected DPW’s position that Josephine had to provide documentary proof of Frank’s separate residence; lack of such documentation did not, by itself, amount to a failure to prove nonresidency.

## Legal Principles

- An agency head may not set aside a hearing examiner’s findings of fact, including credibility-based findings, when those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- In determining public-assistance eligibility, credible testimonial evidence may satisfy a recipient’s burden of proof; the agency may not impose a categorical requirement that nonresidency must be shown by documentary proof of an alternate address.
- Failure to produce documentary evidence of a spouse’s alternate address does not constitute, as a matter of law, failure to prove the spouse is not a household resident, especially where the spouse refuses to provide location information.
- Eligibility decisions must be based on the record as a whole; weak or indirect documents (such as public announcements or address records that may reflect a last-known address) may be weighed against live testimony, and the factfinder’s weighing controls when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Augelli held that DPW could not deny Josephine Augelli’s cash assistance and food stamps by overturning a hearing examiner’s supported finding that her husband did not live in the household or by demanding documentary proof of the husband’s alternate address as the price of proving nonresidency.


Augelli v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare, 468 A.2d 524 (1983)