Ford v. San Joaquin County In-Home Support Services CA3

Filed 2/27/24 Ford v. San Joaquin County In-Home Support Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

TAMMY FORD, C096203

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVUJR20190001718) v.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES,

Defendant and Respondent.

Pro per plaintiff Tammy Ford was employed to provide in-home supportive services to her granddaughter from 2007 until granddaughter died in 2015. Ms. Ford claims defendant San Joaquin County In-Home Supportive Services owes her wages for services she provided. After receiving an adverse decision from the Labor Commissioner, she sought de novo review in the superior court. The superior court also found that defendant did not owe her wages and entered judgment in defendant’s favor.

1

Ms. Ford appeals that judgment and challenges determinations and actions of defendant. We affirm, concluding Ms. Ford’s challenges are either untimely or lack merit. Statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ms. Ford became an In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider for granddaughter in 2007. As early as 2010, the services defendant authorized for granddaughter included zero hours of protective supervision or paramedical services. In May 2012, defendant issued a notice changing granddaughter’s authorized services effective May 1, 2012, but leaving unchanged the zero hours of protective supervision and paramedical services. Subsequent notices included 4.5 hours of paramedical services per week but retained the zero hours for protective supervision effective June 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014. Effective September 1, 2014, defendant decreased the authorized hours for feeding, increased the authorized hours for various other services, and left unchanged the zero hours for protective supervision and 4.5 hours for paramedical services. Defendant informed Ms. Ford of the approved hours via notice dated August 8, 2014 (the August 2014 notice) following a social worker’s visit to Ms. Ford’s home. Ms. Ford was present for the visit as granddaughter was attending school. The needs assessment form the social worker completed for the visit designated a funding code of “2K-CFCO.” Other records indicate that granddaughter was moved from the personal care services program to the Community First Choice Option Program effective September 1, 2014. Ms. Ford requested a hearing before the State Department of Social Services (the department) challenging the August 2014 notice. Her request identified several issues, including a challenge to the paramedical services on the grounds that the social worker never submitted the requisite forms to granddaughter’s physician. Following the hearing,