Richard P. Cassidy v. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0560, Richard P. Cassidy v. New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, the court
on April 6, 2017, issued the following order:

Having considered memoranda of law filed by the parties and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The plaintiff, Richard P. Cassidy, appeals an order
of the Superior Court (McNamara, J.) denying his petition for a writ of certiorari
in which he sought review of the 2015 denial by the defendant, the New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), of his
application for aid to the permanently and totally disabled (APTD) cash
assistance. See RSA 167:6 (2014) (amended 2016); see also Petition of Kilton,
156 N.H. 632, 637 (2007) (explaining that review of DHHS fair hearings
decisions is by petition for certiorari). DHHS denied the plaintiff’s application
based upon an August 2014 determination by the federal Social Security
Administration that he is not disabled within the meaning of the federal Social
Security Act and, therefore, ineligible for supplemental security income (SSI)
benefits. We affirm.

The trial court ruled that DHHS acted consistently with RSA 167:6. At
the time of the denial by DHHS, RSA 167:6, VI provided that, to be eligible for
APTD benefits, a person must be “disabled as defined in the federal Social
Security Act . . . and the regulations adopted under such act.” RSA 167:6, VI
further provided: “Cash assistance shall terminate upon a finding of
ineligibility for federal benefits . . . .” Department regulations provided that the
word “terminate” as used in RSA 167:6, VI included the denial of an application
for APTD cash assistance. See N.H. Admin. Rules, He-W 652.07(n). In 2016,
RSA 167:6, VI was amended. See Laws 2016, 184:1. As amended, RSA 167:6,
VI now provides: “State cash assistance for an applicant shall be denied, or for
a recipient shall be terminated, upon a finding of clinical ineligibility for such
federal cash benefits . . . .” RSA 167:6, VI (Supp. 2016).

The trial court determined that DHHS did not act illegally because, under
the version of RSA 167:6, VI in effect at the time, “the Legislature [had] made a
determination that benefits may not be provided to those terminated from SSI
because they are ineligible.” The court further concluded that “[i]t would be
unreasonable to interpret the statute as providing that benefits may be
provided to those who apply for SSI benefits, even though the Social Security
administration has made a decision that they are not eligible for SSI benefits,
where the Legislature has mandated that those terminated from receiving SSI
benefits because of a determination that [they] are able to work, cannot receive
APTD benefits.”

The plaintiff has not provided a complete record for our review, which is
his burden as the appealing party. See Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H.
248, 250 (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13. Nor has he articulated an appellate
argument. “[I]n the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints
regarding adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument,
is insufficient to warrant judicial review.” State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 49
(2003) (quotation omitted). As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden
of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014).
Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it,
the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the
plaintiff has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2