DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Hudgins 2 28 08

Appeal of

Hearing Officer: Marcia Hudgins

Counsel present for Appellant: Frederick Misilo, Jr.

Counsel present for DMR: Kim LaDue

Hearing Officer decision: Feb. 28, 2008

Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: Mar. 5, 2008

Outcome: Eligible

Keyword: domicile

After graduating from High School in 1993 in Virginia appellant moved to Massachusetts to attend the Riverview School.  She attended the GROW program at Riverview for 4 years, then she attended a program at the Cape Cod Community College known as “Forward.”   Appellant testified that, after completing these programs, she wanted to live in Mass., because of the beautiful community, friends and because she had lots of people to support her here.  Appellant moved into a group home in Hyannis operated by Living Independent Forever.  After a couple of years in the group home, the appellant decided to move into a condo in Mashpee, Mass., where she currently resides. The appellant’s parents live in Washington, and her brother lives in Maryland.  She visits them one to two times per year.  The appellant pays Mass taxes, has a Mass Health Card, a Bay State Access Card, a Mass ID card, and receives food stamps from Mass.  She has a bank account at the Cape Cod Five Bank, votes in Mass., and wants to continue to live in Mass.

The hearing officer found that the appellant’s move to Mass. had been neither arranged nor funded by her parents or other family member. The same went for her condo. In addition, the hearing officer found that she has not lived in VA for over 15 years, nor did she live in Washington with her parents.  The appellant does not have a guardian.

The hearing officer found that while the appellant attended GROW, which was subject to state licensure, that there was no evidence that the residence was arranged or funded by another state or agency within another state. Nor was there evidence that the condo had been arranged by another state or state agency.  Finally, the hearing officer found that the appellant had made a choice to live in Mass. and that she intended to stay here.  The hearing officer found that the appellant had rebutted the presumption set out in the regulations that she was not domiciled in Mass.