In re the Matter of:

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1828

In re the Matter of:

Ryan Swenson,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Douglas County Human Services,
Respondent,

Minnesota Dept of Human Services,
Respondent.

Filed July 7, 2025
Affirmed
Bond, Judge

Douglas County District Court
File No. 21-CV-24-490

Ryan R. Swenson, Moose Lake, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Chad M. Larson, Douglas County Attorney, Christopher D. Mathews, Assistant County
Attorney, Alexandria, Minnesota (for respondent Douglas County Human Services)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, R.J. Detrick, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Bond, Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BOND, Judge
Appellant Ryan Swenson challenges a district court order affirming a decision by
respondents Douglas County Social Services1 (the county) and the Minnesota Department
of Human Services (DHS) disqualifying him from participation in Minnesota’s General
Assistance program for two years. Swenson argues that DHS’s decision was not supported
by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm.
FACTS
Swenson is a resident of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) facility in
Moose Lake. Since his arrival at the facility in 2011, Swenson has intermittently received
General Assistance benefits. Swenson had previously been disqualified from the General
Assistance program from August 2020 to August 2021 for an intentional program violation.
Swenson reapplied for General Assistance in October 2022. In the application,
Swenson reported that he had no employment income but occasionally received “unearned
income” in the form of gifts at holidays. Swenson signed the application form, verifying
that he understood the “Penalty warnings and qualification questions” section and that a
county worker had explained the attached “Client Responsibilities and Rights” document.

1 The title of this opinion identifies one respondent as the “Commissioner of Douglas
County Human Services.” The correct name of that respondent is Douglas County Social
Services, which is led by a director, not a commissioner. We refer to Douglas County
Social Services as “the county” in this opinion. All references in this opinion to “the
commissioner” or “the commissioner of human services” refer to the Minnesota
Commissioner of Human Services.
3
The “Client Responsibilities and Rights” document required Swenson to report changes
that may affect benefits, including changes in income, and cautioned that failing to provide
pertinent information could result in termination of benefits. Swenson began receiving
General Assistance benefits again in October 2022.
In August 2023, Swenson completed a “Household Update Form,” which the county
used to determine whether Swenson would be recertified to receive General Assistance
benefits. The form required applicants to describe any changes in income since their last
application and answer 13 questions. Swenson answered only two of the 13 questions, and
did not respond to any questions regarding household income and expenses. Swenson
included a bank statement with the form, which detailed transactions from July through
August 2023. The bank statement showed several deposits to Swenson’s bank account that
he had not previously reported as income. The county referred Swenson’s case to a county
fraud investigator.
After reviewing the bank statement Swenson included with the Household Update
Form, the county fraud investigator contacted MSOP to obtain a copy of Swenson’s MSOP
account statement. Swenson’s MSOP statement, which listed all 2023 deposits into his
MSOP account, showed three deposits of unearned income in March, June, and July 2023
that had not been reported to the county.
Swenson submitted an updated form in early October 2023. In the updated form,
Swenson indicated “yes” in response to a question asking whether anyone in the household
had a job or income, but he did not provide any explanation. In answer to a question
regarding any income from sources other than work, Swenson marked “no.” After
4
additional investigation, the county fraud investigator notified Swenson that an audit of his
General Assistance eligibility revealed unreported unearned income and the county
proposed to disqualify Swenson from the General Assistance program for a period of two
years.
At the subsequent administrative disqualification hearing before a human-services
judge (HSJ), Swenson testified that the unreported unearned income was from money
orders he had received as gifts. Swenson denied intentionally withholding information and
testified that he did not understand that money orders needed to be reported as unearned
income. Later in his testimony, Swenson stated that he disclosed the money orders to
facility staff and he believed they reported it to the county on his behalf.
In a written order, the HSJ determined that there was clear and convincing evidence
that Swenson committed an intentional program violation . The HSJ found that Swenson
failed to report the unearned income he received through at least July 2023 and, in so doing,
he willfully made false or misleading statements, or misrepresented, concealed, or withheld
facts about his unearned income. The HSJ discredited Swenson’s explanations as to why
he failed to report this income, finding Swenson’s testimony contradic tory and
unpersuasive. The HSJ found that Swenson had significant experience with the General
Assistance program and, having been previously disqualified for an intentional program
violation, was sufficiently on notice about the requirements for reporting unearned income.
The HSJ recommended granting the county’s request to disqualify Swenson from receiving
General Assistance benefits for two years. On behalf of the commissioner of human
5
services, the co-chief HSJ adopted the HSJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommended order as the final decision of DHS.
Swenson appealed to the district court for judicial review of DHS’s final decision.
The district court denied Swenson’s appeal and affirmed DHS’s order.2
Swenson appeals.
DECISION
Minnesota’s General Assistance program provides financial support to “persons
unable to provide themselves with a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and
health,” and who are not otherwise provided for under state or federal law. Minn. Stat.
§ 256D.02, subd. 4 (2024). A person who attempts to obtain “assistance to which the
person is not entitled” or “ assistance greater than that to which the person is reasonably
entitled” through a “willfully false statement or representation” or through the “intentional
withholding or concealment of a material fact” may be penalize d under Minn. Stat.
§ 256.98 (2024). Minn. Stat. § 256D.14 (2024). A person found to have wrongfully
obtained assistance by an administrative-hearing determination must be disqualified from
receiving General Assistance benefits. Minn. Stat. § 256.98, subd. 8(a). First-time

2 DHS also found that Swenson intentionally violated the General Assistance program by
failing to report changes in employment income. Swenson had been receiving employment
income through MSOP’s vocational work program as of April 2023 and failed to report
this income. However, effective August 1, 2021, the legislature amended the definition of
“earned income” for purposes of the General Assistance program to exclude income from
“rehabilitation programs.” 2021 Minn. Laws, 1st Spec. Session, ch. 7, art. 7, § 19, at 175.
DHS subsequently changed its policy to exclude this income from consideration beginning
December 1, 2023. The district court affirmed DHS’s order based solely on Swenson’s
failure to report unearned income, without considering DHS’s finding that Swenson failed
to report employment income. We do the same.
6
offenders are disqualified for one year, second-time offenders are disqualified for two
years, and third-time offenders are permanently disqualified. Id., subd. 8(a)(1)-(3).
A party aggrieved by an order of DHS disqualifying the party from receiving
General Assistance benefits may appeal that order to the district court. Minn. Stat.
§ 256.045, subd. 7 (2024). On appeal to this court from a district court’s order affirming
an administrative-agency decision, we independently review the agency’s decision. In re
Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, 883 N.W.2d 778, 784-85 (Minn. 2016). In so
doing, we will not “retry the facts or make credibility determinations.” Senior v. City of
Edina, 547 N.W.2d 411, 416 (Minn. App. 1996). Administrative agency decisions enjoy
a “presumption of correctness” and the party challenging the agency decision has the
burden of proving that the decision was reached improperly. In re Minn. Power’s Petition
for Approval of EnergyForward Res. Package, 958 N.W.2d 339, 343-44 (Minn. 2021).
When judicial review is authorized by Minn. Stat. § 256.045 (2024), the Minnesota
Administrative Procedure Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-.69 (2024), governs the scope of
review. Zahler v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 624 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Minn. App. 2001),
rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 2001). We may reverse or modify an administrative agency
decision if, among other reasons, the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been
prejudiced because the decision was “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the
entire record as submitted,” or if the decision was “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat.
§ 14.69.

7
I. DHS’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Swenson first argues that DHS’s decision to disqualify him from receiving General
Assistance benefits should be reversed because it was not supported by substantial
evidence. “[S]ubstantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion, and more than a scintilla, some, or any evidence.” In
re NorthMet Project Permit to Mine Application, 959 N.W.2d 731, 749 (Minn. 2021)
(quotations omitted). To determine whether an agency decision is supported by substantial
evidence, we must “determine whether the agency has adequately explained how it derived
its conclusion and whether that conclusion is reasonable on the basis of the record.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
To prove an intentional program violation, there must be clear and convincing
evidence that the recipient both committed a violation and did so intentionally. See Minn.
Stat. § 256.046, subd. 1 (2024) (providing that administrative fraud hearings are subject to
the requirements of 7 C.F.R. § 273.16(e)(6)). The General Assistance program requires
that recipients report all countable income and report any changes in income within ten
days of the change. Minn. Stat. § 256D.06, subd. 1 (2022) (providing that General
Assistance benefits are subject to Minn. Stat. § 256P.06, subd. 3 (2022),3 which states that
unearned income— nonrecurring income over $60 per quarter— is considered when
determining General Assistance eligibility); Minn. Stat. § 256D.405, subd. 3 (2024).

3 The legislature amended this section in 2023 to delete “nonrecurring over $60 per quarter”
as an example of unearned income. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 70, art. 10, § 79, at 383. That
amendment, which took effect on July 1, 2024, does not apply in this case because Swenson
filed his application for General Assistance benefits in 2023. Id.
8
Swenson does not appear to dispute that he failed to report unearned income.
Instead, Swenson asserts, as he did at the administrative disqualification hearing, that his
failure to report the unearned income was not done intentionally and was thus not an
intentional program violation.
The record supports DHS’s determination that Swenson failed to report three
deposits of unearned income reflected on his August 2023 and October 2023 Household
Update Forms. The forms instructed Swenson to answer questions regarding income and
money received “from sources other than work.” In his August 2023 form, Swenson did
not disclose that he received any unearned income and failed to answer 11 of the 13
questions on the form. In his October 2023 form, Swenson replied “no” to the question
about whether anyone in his household received income from sources other than work. But
Swenson’s MSOP account statement showed three deposits of unearned income in March,
June, and July 2023.
In addition, the record reflects that Swenson had been a General Assistance recipient
on and off since his arrival at MSOP in 2011. Swenson had previously been barred from
General Assistance for one year because he was found to have intentionally violated the
program requirements. In his October 2022 General Assistance application, Swenson
reported that he occasionally received “other unearned income” such as gifts, and
acknowledged that he was required to report changes to income that may affect benefits.
These facts support DHS’s determination that Swenson was familiar with the General
Assistance program and was aware of the reporting requirements.
9
Finally, at the administrative disqualification hearing, Swenson offered different
explanations for his actions. Swenson first asserted that he was unaware that he needed to
report the unearned income. Later in his testimony, he claimed that he disclosed the
unearned income deposits to MSOP staff and that he believed they reported it on his behalf.
DHS found Swenson’s explanations not credible, and we defer to the agency’s credibility
determinations. In re Appeal of Staley, 730 N.W.2d 289, 294 (Minn. App. 2007).
We therefore conclude that DHS adequately explained its determination and that
substantial evidence supports its decision that Swenson committed an intentional program
violation by failing to report unearned income.
II. DHS’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Swenson also argues that DHS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. “An agency
decision is arbitrary and capricious if it is an exercise of the agency ’s will, rather than its
judgment, or if the decision is based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons.” CUP
Foods, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 633 N.W.2d 557, 565 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied
(Minn. Nov. 13, 2001). Swenson asserts that DHS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious
because his attestation that he lacked additional information created a “presumption of
cooperation” that the agency had to overcome. As support for this proposition, Swenson
cites an inapposite and unpersuasive Ninth Circuit case involving child paternity. 4

4 Swenson cites to a Ninth Circuit case involving a Hawai’i state program that provided aid
to needy families with children. Tomas v. Rubin, 926 F.2d 906, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1991).
That program was in turn regulated by federal statute that provided that a condition of
eligibility was cooperating with the state to establish paternity. Id. The Ninth Circuit relied
on federal regulation for a definition of “cooperation,” which provided that attesting to a
lack of information could constitute cooperation. Id. at 909.
10
Swenson’s argument lacks factual or legal support. We conclude that the record does not
support Swenson’s claim that DHS used its will rather than its judgment in determining
that Swenson committed an intentional program violation when he failed to disclose
unearned income.
In sum, based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that DHS’s
determination that Swenson committed an intentional program violation by failing to report
unearned income is supported by substantial evidence and neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Affirmed.