DMR eligibility decision by H.O. Hudgins 1 16 08

The hearing officer found that the appellant did meet the criteria of 115CMR6.04(2)(a) because he was considered domiciled in Mass. and intended to stay here indefinitely. While the family assisted in his move to Mass., they did not arrange it. "[Assisting] is not the same as arranging." Keyword: domicile Hearing Officer: Marcia Hudgins Counsel present for Appellant: Frederick Misilo, Jr.  Counsel present for DMR: Patrick Murphy Hearing Officer decision: Jan. 16, 2008 Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: Mar. 10, 2008 Outcome: Eligible The hearing officer considered whether the appellant was domiciled in Massachusetts in accordance with 115CMR 6.04(2). The appellant had lived in Florida prior to his move to Mass. While attending a conference on Prader-Willi in Mass. the appellant discovered the Advocates program and thought that this would be a good program for him. With assistance from his parents the appellant moved to Mass. Evidence was presented that appellant wanted to be closer to his siblings due to his parents' health issues and his close relationship with his sister. The evidence also showed that the appellant's sister helped him by investigating Advocates, by assisting him travel to Massachusetts and helping him pay for the cost of Advocates until he became eligible for DMR benefits. Evidence was presented that the appellant lives in group home in Framingham and works at a candle factory. Evidence was presented that appellant intends to stay in Mass., which included: Mass ID card, MassHealth card, library card, and Mass. voter registration. The hearing officer found that there was no evidence that the appellant's parents had arranged for him to attend Advocates, introduced him to Advocates, or brought him to Advocates without the appellant expressing his desire to investigate the possibility of moving to Massachusetts.

DMR contended that appellant's parents arranged for him to move and live in the Commonwealth, and was not entitled to DMR services under 115CMR6.04(b)(2) as a result. In addition, DMR argued that the purpose of the regulations was to prevent people from moving to the Commonwealth with the presumption that they are going to get services. However, the hearing officer found that the appellant did meet the criteria of 115CMR6.04(2)(a) because he was considered domiciled in Mass. and intended to stay here indefinitely. While the family assisted in his move to Mass., they did not arrange it. "[Assisting] is not the same as arranging."