Johanna M. Jimenez Family Child Care Home v. DHS

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 520 C.D. 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Johanna M. Jimenez Family Child : Care Home, : Petitioner : : No. 520 C.D. 2024 v. : : Submitted: May 6, 2025 Department of Human Services, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: June 2, 2025

Johanna M. Jimenez Family Child Care Home (Family Home) has petitioned this Court to review an order issued by Department of Human Services (Department) on March 7, 2024 (Reconsideration Order). Through the Reconsideration Order, Secretary of the Department Valerie A. Arkoosh (Secretary) denied a request for rehearing or reconsideration regarding an order issued by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Bureau) on January 30, 2024, which pertained to the refusal by the Department’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning (Office) to renew Family Home’s certificate of compliance for its child care facility. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND1 On July 18, 2023, the Office notified Family Home via mail that its certificate of compliance would not be renewed due to a litany of problems discovered during inspections of Family Home’s facility. The Office sent this notice to 5401 Rutland Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which was the address the Office had on record at that time for Family Home. This notice also informed Family Home that any appeal of the renewal denial had to be received by the Office within 30 days of the notice’s mailing date. Johanna M. Jimenez, Family Home’s owner, received the notice on July 22, 2023, and informed the Office via email on July 27, 2023, that Family Home’s new address was 4951 D Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but did not mail her administrative appeal paperwork to the Office until August 18, 2023. The Office received Jimenez’s appeal on August 23, 2023, whereupon a hearing was held before a Bureau administrative law judge (ALJ). On January 9, 2024, the ALJ issued a Proposed Adjudication and recommended that the Bureau dismiss Jimenez’s appeal, because the appeal was untimely and Jimenez had failed to offer a valid basis for allowing her to appeal nunc pro tunc. The Bureau adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and Proposed Adjudication in full on January 30, 2024, after which Jimenez sought reconsideration by Secretary. On March 7, 2024, Secretary issued the Reconsideration Order denying Jimenez’s request. This appeal followed shortly thereafter. II. DISCUSSION Under normal circumstances, we would address the merits of Family Home’s appellate arguments. However, we need not do so here, due to Family

1 We draw the substance of this section from the Proposed Adjudication that the Bureau adopted in full and incorporated by reference through its January 30, 2024 order. See generally Bureau Order, 1/30/24; Proposed Adjudication, 1/9/24.

2 Home’s failure to argue that Secretary inappropriately denied Jimenez’s reconsideration request. It is well settled that “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in a brief, or when the brief is inadequate or defective because an issue is not adequately developed, this Court will not consider the merits of the issue.” Ruiz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 911 A.2d 600, 605 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). In this instance, Secretary denied Jimenez’s reconsideration request and, in doing so, affirmed the Bureau’s dismissal of Jimenez’s administrative appeal. See Recons. Order at 1. Despite this, Family Home does not offer any arguments in its brief that directly challenge the Reconsideration Order on its merits,2 nor does Family Home contest therein the underlying bases for the Reconsideration Order, i.e., the Bureau’s determinations that Jimenez had failed to file a timely administrative appeal and was not entitled to file her appeal nunc pro tunc. See Family Home’s Br. at 2-5. Accordingly, Family Home has waived its ability to challenge the Reconsideration Order. See Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (“Arguments not properly developed in a brief will be deemed waived by this Court.”). III. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we affirm the Reconsideration Order.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

2 Instead, Family Home argues that the Office abused its discretion, committed errors of law, and violated Family Home’s constitutional rights by declining to renew the certificate of compliance. See Family Home’s Br. at 3.

3 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Johanna M. Jimenez Family Child : Care Home, : Petitioner : : No. 520 C.D. 2024 v. : : Department of Human Services, : Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that the order denying reconsideration, issued by Respondent Department of Human Services on March 7, 2024, is AFFIRMED.