The following new issue code has been created pursuant to requirements of the settlement in the Matter of Khana v. Turner: Issue Code 920 ("Reopen FH—Claim Failure HRA to Implement MDR Agreement").
This code is to be used for any request to reopen a hearing when the appellant or representative claims to have either withdrawn or defaulted a hearing based on agreements made by the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) during Mandatory Dispute Resolution (MDR) which the agency allegedly failed to implement. Reopened hearings will retain in the Fair Hearing Information System (FHIS) the original fair hearing number. All such requests must be reopened rather than reopen denied as they cannot be time-barred. The timeliness provisions of 18 NYCRR § 358-5.5(a) for
requesting reopening of a defaulted hearing do not apply.
Issue Code 920 is being added to these requests solely as a tracking code. Therefore, the Action code for Issue Code 920 is to be noted as "INAD" and the Aid Status code is to be noted as "NA."
Under the settlement in the Khana litigation, OAH must report as follows:
1). For a period of one year from the date of Court approval of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement (July 7, 2005), State Defendant agrees to recalendar fair hearings for current public assistance recipients who withdrew fair hearings at MDR interviews convened between the inception of MDR and January 22, 2001 and hereinafter contact State Defendant to request such recalendaring.
2). For a total period of nine months from the date of Court approval of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement (July 7, 2005), State Defendant will provide to plaintiffs all state fair hearing decisions issued during each three-month period that involve Fair Hearing Information System Code 920 - “REOPEN FH - CLAIM FAILURE HRA TO IMPLEMENT MDR AGREEMENT” to those cases where a fair hearing is reopened on the basis that an appellant claims that he or she withdrew or defaulted at a scheduled fair hearing as the result of representations made by the City defendant at an MDR interview. This includes those cases described in paragraph #1.
|
