Bureaucracy v. Lies With In-Home Supportive Services.

A county determined a disabled woman was eligible to receive In-Home Supportive Services [IHSS; Welfare & Institutions Code section 12300], and she selected her son to be her individual provider. The county sought return of $29,560 it paid to the son on the ground he did not perform the services. In fact, it was the disabled woman’s daughter who provided the services. Each month the daughter mailed the IHSS timesheets to the son, who signed them based on the services performed by his sister. When the son received the checks from the county, he deposited them into his mother’s bank account. The money was used to pay the rent on the mother’s home. An administrative officer concluded an overpayment had been made to the son because he provided no services for his mother. The son petitioned for a writ of mandate in the superior court; the court ruled in his favor since “a lay person . . . could not have been expected to know that he was prohibited from arranging for another person to perform the services for the recipient.” The appellate court reversed the decision of the superior court and reinstated the administrative officer’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported it. Bedoe v. County of San Diego  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist. Div. 1;April 3, 2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 56.