Page 206

MS 1010

(3)

Example 2: An individual applies in Kentucky and states they are not receiving benefits in any other state. A report verifies the individual was active in another state at the time she was approved for benefits in Kentucky; however, the issued benefits in the other state have not been used. Due to SR rules, there is no claim for benefits issued in the other state as an address change falls under SR guidelines. A claim is pursued for benefits issued in Kentucky as the individual is required at application to report receipt of benefits from another state. Verification of benefit issuance and closure of the other state’s case is required to determine the overpayment period. A Dual Participation claim would not be explored as the individual did not use the benefits issued from both states. This does not prevent the claim from being explored as an IPV.]

K. Missing/Unsigned Applications (SNAP)

A missing/unsigned SNAP application does not prevent a SNAP claim from being established.

Example 1: A claim referral is completed on an individual. The referral is split into two claims due to the household situation and each claim will be assigned a different claim number. Both claims are referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for prosecution. The first claim case is prosecuted, but the second claim is returned to the local office for administrative action due to a missing recertification application. The Integrated Eligibility and Enrollment System (IEES) indicates the individual completed the recertification timely, information was updated on IEES, and OIG evidence supports an intentional program violation. However, without the application being located in the case record, there is not sufficient evidence to prove fraud in a hearing or court proceeding. In this instance, the second claim was returned for administrative action because an IPV cannot be pursued. The second claim would be established as an Inadvertent Household Error (IHE).

Example 2: An individual applied for and was approved for SNAP on August 1, 2012. The household exceeded the income limit in September 2012 and did not report it until the recertification interview in July 2013. The claim is referred as a Suspected Intentional Program Violation (SIPV). Upon review, the RCW cannot locate the signed application and without the application, there is insufficient evidence to support an IPV. The overpayment would be pursued as an IHE claim.

[Example 3: The recipient completed a recertification on June 1, 2012. The household exceeded the income limit in August 2012 and the individual reports the change untimely to the agency. The Agency was unable to locate a signed copy of the application from the June recertification. In this instance, the correct category would be an IHE.