WAC 388-446-0015 Intentional program violation (IPV) and disqualification hearings for Basic Food

1. An intentional program violation (IPV) is defined as an act in which a person intentionally:

   1. Makes a false or misleading statement; 

   2. Misrepresents, conceals or withholds facts; or

   3. Acts in violation of the Food Stamp Act, the Food Stamp Program regulations, or any state statute relating to the use, presentation, transfer, acquisition, receipt, trafficking, or possession of food benefits.

2. Basic Food clients suspected of committing an (IPV) are subject to referral for an administrative disqualification hearing, if: 

   1. The suspected IPV causes an over-issuance of four hundred fifty dollars or more; or

   2. The suspected IPV is due to the trafficking of food benefits; and

   3. The person has not been referred for criminal proceedings; and

   4. The person resides in Washington state, at the time of the referral; or

   5. The person resides outside Washington state, but is within one hour's reasonable drive to a CSO.

3. An administrative disqualification hearing (ADH) is a formal hearing to determine if a person committed an IPV. ADHs are governed by the rules found in chapter 388-02 WAC. However, rules in this section are the overriding authority if there is a conflict.

4. A client who commits one or more IPVs and is suspected of committing another, is referred for an ADH when the act of suspected violation occurred: 

   1. After the department mailed the disqualification notice to the client for the most recent IPV; or

   2. After criminal proceedings for the most recent IPV are concluded.

5. A person suspected of IPV is entitled to receive notice of an ADH at least thirty days in advance of the hearing date. The notice is sent by certified mail, or provided to the client by personal service and will contain the following: 

   1. The date, time, and place of the hearing;

   2. The charges against the individual;

   3. A summary of the evidence, and how and where the evidence can be examined;

   4. A warning that a decision will be based solely on evidence provided by the department, if the individual fails to appear at the hearing;

   5. A statement that the individual has ten days from the date of the scheduled hearing to show good cause for failure to appear at the hearing and to request rescheduling;

   6. A warning that a determination of IPV will result in a disqualification period; and

   7. A statement that if a telephone hearing is scheduled, the individual can request an in-person hearing by filing a request with the administrative law judge one week or more prior to the date of the hearing.

6. The person or a representative shall have the right to one continuance of up to thirty days if a request is filed ten days or more prior to the hearing date.

7. The hearing will be conducted and a decision rendered even if the person or representative fail to appear, unless within ten days from the date of the scheduled hearing: 

   1. The person can show good cause for failing to appear; and

   2. The person or representative requests the hearing be re-instated.

8. A scheduled telephone hearing may be changed to an in-person hearing if requested one week or more in advance. If requested less than one week in advance the person must show good cause for the requested change.

9. The ALJ issues a final decision as specified in WAC 388-02-0215(5) and WAC 388-02-0527.  The decision determines whether the department establishes with clear and convincing evidence that the person committed and intended to commit an IPV.

10. The department and the client each have the right to request a reconsideration of the decision  as specified in WAC 388-02-0610 through WAC 388-02-0635. The final order or the reconsideration decision is the final agency decision.

11. A client's disqualification is not implemented and benefits continue at the current amount when: 

    1. The client can show good cause for not attending the hearing within thirty days from the date the disqualification notice was mailed; and

    2. An administrative law judge determines the client had good cause; or

    3. The client requests reconsideration or files a petition for judicial review to appeal the disqualification as specified in WAC 388-02-0530 (1) or (4).

12. An administrative disqualification hearing and a regular hearing can be combined when the cause for both hearings is related.