Note:  Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.




                                                  ENTRY ORDER


                                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-082


                                                          OCTOBER TERM, 2005



David Papazoni                                                      }           APPEALED FROM:



     v.                                                                      }

}           Human Services Board


Department for Children and Families                      }

}           DOCKET NO. FH 19,341



                                          In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:



Petitioner appeals from a Human Services Board decision denying his request for general assistance benefits.  We affirm.


The Board=s findings are unchallenged.  Petitioner is a single man who lives with his parents and receives Social Security disability benefits, food stamps, and pharmacy benefits.  He applied for general assistance benefits because he wanted to move out of his parents= home.  The Department for Children and Families denied his application after determining that he was not facing a catastrophic situation as defined in the regulationsCspecifically in this case, a loss of housing.  Following a telephonic hearing, during which petitioner stated that he had occasional problems living with his parents, the Board upheld the Department=s denial of general assistance benefits because there was no evidence either that petitioner=s parents had asked him to leave their home, or that his continued residence in their home threatened his health or safety.


On appeal, petitioner does not challenge the Board=s findings or its application of the law to the facts, but rather makes some allegations about past misuse of his social security number and wholly unexplained Aeligibility frauds,@ abuses, and thefts in the Agency of Human Services and other unnamed government agencies.  These allegations have no evident relevance to the Board=s decision, and thus petitioner fails to raise any cognizable issue for review by this Court.  Cf. Carson v. Dep=t of Employment Security, 135 Vt. 312, 314 (1977) (A[A]ppeals from decisions of the Employment Security Board are limited to evaluating the propriety of the findings made by the Board and its application of the pertinent law to the facts as found.@).










Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice



Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice



Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice