RONALD PEARSON, Chief Judge
This matter comes on following remand from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00589. Previously, this Court granted the Debtor's request for the discharge of her student loan obligation by order dated June 2, 2005. The Defendants appealed the order and, on February 24, 2006, the District Court reversed the discharge and remanded the case to this Court with instructions to re-analyze the evidence under the standards articulated in Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Frushour, 433 F.3d 393, 398 (4th Cir. 2005).
The Court considered the testimony of the Plaintiff, Brenda Sue Graham, and the stipulations of the parties that were presented by the parties at the March 11, 2004, trial. Based on the foregoing with the application of the holding of the District Court in its remand order, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. At the time of the hearing, the Plaintiff was unemployed. The job the Plaintiff most recently held was as a phlebotomist with a laboratory called Valley Diagnostic.
2. For the year 2003, the Plaintiff had an income of $8,002.00, half of which came from unemployment benefits.
3. The Plaintiff ceased working following several on-the-job injuries to her back and knee.
4. The medical evidence indicates that the Plaintiff could only do light work for no more than 12 hours per week.
5. The Plaintiffs previous employer had no positions available for someone with the Plaintiff's qualifications that accommodated the Plaintiff's medical restrictions.
6. At the time of the trial, the Plaintiff was living on food stamps and $312.29 per month in child support payments.
7. The Plaintiff's mother lives with her and contributes $300.00 per month to the Plaintiff's mortgage payment.
8. The Plaintiff attended West Virginia Career College for two years and received training in medical assisting and office technology.
9. At the time of the hearing the Plaintiff's student loans were approximately $24,000.00.
10. The Plaintiff has made no payments toward her loans and has not applied to the William D. Ford Federal Loan Program, which provides for a repayment plan that is based on the debtor's income, and if the income is below a certain amount, allows for the forebearance of payments.
Based upon these findings, the Court concludes the following:
1. In Blankenship v. Nebraska Student Loan Program, (In re: Blankenship, Case No. 96-50082), A.P. No. 96-0051 (November 17, 1999), this court adopted the test articulated in Bruner v. New York Higher Education Services Corp., (In Re: Bruner) 831 F.2d 395, 396 (2nd Cir. 1987) for determining whether undue hardship exists and whether the discharge of a student loan is justified. The three prongs of the Bruner test are the following:
A) That the debtor cannot, based on current income and expenses, maintain a minimal standard of living for himself and any dependants if forced to repay the loan. In discussing the first prong of the test in Blankenship, this Court stated that a debtor whose family income falls below a the established poverty guidelines established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services presumptively meets the first prong of theBruner test;
B) That additional circumstances exist which make it probable that the financial situation is going to exist over a significant portion of the repayment period for the student loan; and
C) That the debtor has made a good faith effort to repay his or her student loans.
2. Since the Plaintiff falls below the established poverty guidelines, the Court finds that the repayment of the student loans in the present case at the present time would be an undue hardship.
3. The Plaintiff's educational level and medical restrictions make it probable that the Plaintiffs financial situation will exist over a significant portion of any repayment period.
4. In applying the Frushour standard, the Court finds that the failure of the Plaintiff to apply for the William D. Ford Repayment Program or to seek other repayment methods demonstrates a lack of good faith under the third prong of the test.
5. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it would be not be appropriate to allow the Debtor to discharge her student loans as she has requested in her complaint.
It is accordingly, ORDERED that the relief sought in this Adversary Proceeding is DENIED.
The case shall be closed and removed from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED