Welfare Beneficiary State Hearing Information

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/635): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” Authorization Form I, the undersigned, hereby authorize the organization and persons named below, or any other person\/attorney designated said person or organization, to be my authorized representative, and to represent me, relative to my public social services matter, or any other matter, including the right to make statements on my behalf, or the filing for any fair hearing and the initiation of any litigation. This authorization shall also be construed as an authorization to release any and all information to organization and person designated by them, including an attorney. I further authorize said organization and persons designated by them to apply for and represent me during all aspects of the application process or any other matter relative to the process of eligibility determination for any and all benefits that I and\/or my family may be eligible for. Name of Customer\/Client __________________________________________________ Name Last Name __________________________________________________ Address _________________________ ________________________ City\/ ZIP Telephone Signature __________________________________ Dated: __________ Name of Person and Organization __________________________________________________ Name Last Name __________________________________________________ Address _________________________ ________________________ City\/ ZIP Telephone Contact Phone \u2029 Text1: Text2: Text3: Text45: Text5: Text7: ”

” Authorization Form I, the undersigned, hereby authorize the organization and persons named below, or any other person\/attorney designated said person or organization, to be my authorized representative, and to represent me, relative to my public social services matter, or any other matter, including the right to make statements on my behalf, or the filing for any fair hearing and the initiation of any litigation. This authorization shall also be construed as an authorization to release any and all information to organization and person designated by them, including an attorney. I further authorize said organization and persons designated by them to apply for and represent me during all aspects of the application process or any other matter relative to the process of eligibility determination for any and all benefits that I and\/or my family may be eligible for. Name of Customer\/Client __________________________________________________ Name Last Name __________________________________________________ Address _________________________ ________________________ City\/ ZIP Telephone Signature __________________________________ Dated: __________ Name of Person and Organization __________________________________________________ Name Last Name __________________________________________________ Address _________________________ ________________________ City\/ ZIP Telephone Contact Phone \u2029 Text1: Text2: Text3: Text45: Text5: Text7: ”

” STATE OF CALIFORNIA – HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES January 19, 2004 TO: ALL COUNTY APPEALS LETTER Subject: Expedited State Hearings The purpose of this is to notify you that effective February 1, 2004, State hearing requests involving a county’s denial of Expedited Food Stamps, Immediate Need, Homeless Assistance, and any other issue of urgency that the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) State Hearings Division deems necessary will be scheduled on an expedited basis. It is our intention that by implementing this process and scheduling cases for expedited hearings, we will be able to provide a more timely and expeditious due process in those cases where emergency relief is at issue. Before announcing this decision, we developed a process that gave us the ability to evaluate the impact of an expedited process on State and County systems. The Pilot Project was initiated with the cooperation of Butte, Kern, Orange, Riverside and Solano counties. The Pilot Project was to determine what problems would occur and whether there were solutions to those problems if a faster scheduling process was used to calendar cases involving claimants whose application for emergency related benefits had been denied by the county. During the Pilot, hearing requests were received in the subject areas. All were scheduled for hearing but only two cases were actually heard. One case involving Emergency Food Stamps resulted in a granted decision and the other case, also involving Expedited Food Stamps, was denied. During the Pilot, we also conducted a survey of counties to get their views about any problems they expected if the project were to be implemented statewide and notice to claimants of the availability of the expedited process is done. Responding counties identified the following potential problem areas: Difficulty in contacting claimants; Hearing room and equipment availability at county hearing locations due to scheduling conflicts; Access to county files because of the shortened up-front time period for counties to prepare for these hearings; Identification of the subject cases at intake so expedited scheduling can occur; and, County staff problems due to the impact of the expedited hearing process. Page 2 of 3 After considerable discussion with counties, Legal Services, and CCWRO, we have decided that the problems that were identified could be resolved and that the number of cases involved in the subject areas was relatively low. For example, county staff recommended that once a determination had been made to deny an application involving an issue subject to the expedited process, the case record can be kept in a central location within the county for 30 days anticipating a hearing request. This would guarantee access to the case file if the claimant files a request for hearing. In addition, counties could designate specific staffs that are specially trained to handle these cases on an expedited basis using model formats for statements of position and representing the counties’ cases at hearings. We will work with counties to avoid scheduling conflicts and the shortened up-front scheduling time for hearing should enhance the ability of the counties and the State to contact the claimants about their hearings and provide a much quicker response to the claimant’s exigent circumstance. The procedures for expedited hearings are as follows: The issues that will be subject to this process are cases involving Expedited Food Stamps, Immediate Need, Homeless Assistance, and any other issue of urgency that the CDSS-SHD deems necessary. The hearings will be scheduled to be heard ten working days from the date the claimant’s request for expedited hearing is received and Presiding Judge has deemed it necessary to conduct an expedited hearing. Whenever possible, the hearings will be incorporated into the existing calendar for regularly scheduled cases. If incorporation of the expedited hearing case is not possible, the hearing will be scheduled by telephone. The claimant and the county appeals representative will be in the county office and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will be in the state regional office. All parties will be notified in writing of the date of the expedited hearing ten working days in advance of the scheduled hearing date. Notices to counties and authorized representative agencies will be transmitted by fax or e-mail. The parties will be encouraged to negotiate a settlement in the case so that immediate action by the county can take place without the necessity of the case going to hearing, causing further delay. Page 3 of 3 The county will be required to have a Statement of Position ready on the day of the hearing for cases not settled. The ALJ will issue a decision in the case within five working days from the date of the record closure. Again, it is our intention that by implementing this process and scheduling cases for expedited hearings, we will be able to provide more effective due process in those cases where emergency relief is at issue. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the expedited hearing process, contact Rosalei Morefield at (916) 229-4155 or Lonnie M. Carlson, Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Regional Office, at (916) 229-4187. Sincerely, Original Document Signed by JOHN R. CASTELLO Chief Administrative Law Judge ”

” West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services Part 2. Administration Chapter 7. Hearings GENERAL NOTES 2001 Main Volume CROSS REFERENCES Administrative hearings, generally, seeGovernment Code 11370 et seq. Adult day health care programs, grievance procedures, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 14555. Medi-Cal drug treatment program, service providers, assistance to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, seeHealth and Safety Code 11758.47. Prepaid health plans, grievance procedure, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 14450. Residential care facilities for persons with chronic life-threatening illness, order to remove resident, notice to resident and licensee, review and determination of relocation plan, seeHealth and Safety Code 1568.073. Residential care facilities, removal of resident with health condition which cannot be cared for within limits of license or requires inpatient health facility care, seeHealth and Safety Code 1569.54. Support services, complaint resolution, state hearing, seeFamily Code 17801. Work incentive programs, laws applicable to proceedings, seeUnemployment Insurance Code 5300. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal eligibility and share of cost, Right to state hearing, see22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50951. State hearing procedures, see22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50953. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code D. 9, Pt. 2, Ch. 7, Refs & Annos, CA WEL & INST D. 9, Pt. 2, Ch. 7, Refs & Annos Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code D. 9, Pt. 2, Ch. 7, Refs & Annos Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11370&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS14555&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11758.47&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS11758.47&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS14450&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS1568.073&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS1569.54&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1003409&DocName=CAFAMS17801&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000224&DocName=CAUIS5300&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50951&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50953&FindType=Y Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10950. Opportunity for hearing; priorities; recipient defined If any applicant for or recipient of public social services is dissatisfied with any action of the county department relating to his or her application for or receipt of public social services, if his or her application is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, or if any person who desires to apply for public social services is refused the oppor- tunity to submit a signed application therefor, and is dissatisfied with that refusal, he or she shall, in person or through an authorized representative, without the necessity of filing a claim with the board of supervisors, upon filing a request with the State Department of Social Services or the State Department of Health Services, whichever department administers the public social service, be accorded an opportunity for a state hearing. Priority in setting and deciding cases shall be given in those cases in which aid is not being provided pending the outcome of the hearing. This priority shall not be construed to permit or excuse the failure to render decisions within the time allowed under federal and state law. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, there is no right to a state hearing when either (1) state or fed- eral law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients unless the reason for an individual request is incorrect grant computation, or (2) the sole issue is a federal or state law requiring an automatic change in ser- vices or medical assistance which adversely affects some or all recipients. For the purposes of administering health care services and medical assistance, the State Director of Health Ser- vices shall have those powers and duties conferred on the Director of Social Services by this chapter to conduct state hearings in order to secure approval of a state plan under applicable federal law. The State Director of Health Services may contract with the State Department of Social Services for the provi- sions of state hearings in accordance with this chapter. As used in this chapter, recipient means an applicant for or recipient of public social services except aid ex- clusively financed by county funds or aid under Article 1 (commencing with Section 12000) to Article 6 (commencing with Section 12250), inclusive, of Chapter 3 of Part 3, and under Article 8 (commencing with Sec- tion 12350) of Chapter 3 of Part 3, or those activities conducted under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 18350) of Part 6, and shall include any individual who is an approved adoptive parent, as described in subdivi- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10950%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS12000&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS12250&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS12350&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS12350&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS18350&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS18350&FindType=Y sion (C) of Section 8708 of the Family Code, and who alleges that he or she has been denied or has experienced delay in the placement of a child for adoption solely because he or she lives outside the jurisdiction of the de- partment. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1973, c. 1216, p. 2897, 7, eff. Dec. 5, 1973; Stats.1975, c. 171, p. 316, 21, eff. June 30, 1975; Stats.1977, c. 1252, p. 4653, 789, operative July 1, 1978; Stats.1978, c. 429, 238.5, eff. July 17, 1978, operative July 1, 1978; Stats.1981, c. 1, p. 3, 1, eff. Dec. 4, 1980; Stats.1985, c. 1274, 13, eff. Sept. 30, 1985; Stats.1986, c. 415, 2, eff. July 17, 1986; Stats.1991, c. 820 (S.B.475), 6; Stats.1998, c. 1056 (A.B.2773), 19.5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1973 amendment added or aid under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1200) of Part 3 of this division to the provision defining recipient. Operative date of Stats.1973, c. 1216, see Historical and Statutory Notes under Welfare and Institutions Code 10551. The 1975 amendment added the provisions relating to the Director’s powers and duties to conduct and contract for fair hearings; deleted or services following aid in the provision relating to dissatisfaction with county department actions and following except aid in the provision defining recipient. The 1977 amendment rewrote the section, which previously read: If any applicant for or recipient of public social services is dissatisfied with any action of the county depart- ment relating to his application for or receipt of aid, or if his application is not acted upon with reasonable promptness, or if any person who desires to apply for such aid is refused the opportunity to submit a signed ap- plication therefor, and is dissatisfied with such refusal, he shall, in person or through an authorized representat- ive, without the necessity of filing a claim with the board of supervisors, upon filing a request with the depart- ment, be accorded an opportunity for a fair hearing. For the purposes of administering services, the Director of Health shall have those powers and duties conferred on the Director of Benefit Payments by this chapter to conduct fair hearings in order to secure approval of a state plan under the provisions of applicable federal law. The Director of Health may contract with the Department of Benefit Payments for the provisions of fair hear- ings in accordance with this chapter. As used in this chapter, recipient means an applicant for or recipient of aid or services except aid exclusively financed by county funds or aid under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 12000) of Part 3 of this division. The 1978 amendment deleted in which case ‘department’ for purposes of this chapter shall mean the State De- partment of Health Services from the end of the provision relating to the Director’s ability to contract for the West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1003409&DocName=CAFAMS8708&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28ICB8124020F-D24136B502E-3D8658F0F47%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28ICB8124020F-D24136B502E-3D8658F0F47%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28I9258AEFB0E-AB48F0ABE8C-21FA1AC8E03%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10551&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10551&FindType=Y provisions of fair hearings. The 1981 amendment added the provisions relating to rights to a state hearing. The 1985 amendment added or those activities conducted under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 18350) of Part 6 to the provision defining recipient. The 1986 amendment added the provisions relating to priorities in setting and deciding cases. Stats.1998, c. 1056, added, at the end of the section, , and shall include any individual who is an approved ad- optive parent, as described in subdivision (C) of Section 8708 of the Family Code, and who alleges that he or she has been denied or has experienced delay in the placement of a child for adoption solely because he or she lives outside the jurisdiction of the department. An amendment of this section by 19.6 of Stats.1998, c. 1056, failed to become operative under the provisions of 38 of that Act. Section 11 of Stats.1999, c. 803 (A.B.472), provides: Sections 1 and 2 of this bill shall become operative only if either Assembly Bill 196 [Stats.1999, c. 478] or Senate Bill 542 [Stats.1999, c. 480], or both, are enacted into law during the 1999-2000 Regular Session, and as enacted, either or both bills add Division 17 (commencing with Section 17000) to the Family Code, in which case Sections 3, 4, 5, [amending Welfare and Institutions Code 10950, 10951, and 10963] and 6 [The bill did not contain a Section 6] of this bill shall not become operative. Section affected by two or more acts at the same session of the legislature, see Government Code 9605. Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1891, 1. Former 425, added by Stats.1961, c. 1883, p. 3982, 1, amended by Stats.1963, c. 43, p. 658, 1.2; Stats.1963, c. 2173, p. 4560, 1. Former 445, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. CROSS REFERENCES Conduct of hearings, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10953 et seq. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1003409&DocName=CAFAMS8708&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10951&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10963&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS9605&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10953&FindType=L Hearings, delegation of power to conduct, see Government Code 11182. Hearings by department heads, see Government Code 11184 et seq. Hospital fair pricing policies, see Health and Safety Code 127400 et seq. Public social services defined, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10051. Report on administration of appeals, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10612. Report on officers administering funds used for public social services, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10602. Right of appeal, applicant under relief law of 1945, see Welfare and Institutions Code 18494. Time for request for hearing, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10951. Words and phrases, generally, see Welfare and Institutions Code 9 et seq., 10050 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Geographic managed care program, problem resolution process for members, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 53926. Health care services, fair hearing related to denial, termination or reduction in medical services, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 51014.1. Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Prepaid health plans, information to new members, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 53452. Primary care case management plans, information to new members, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 56452. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. Two-plan model managed care program, problem resolution process for members, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 53892. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Administrative collateral estoppel in California: A critical evaluation of People v. Sims. Thomas F. Crosby, Jr., 40 Hastings L.J. 907 (July, 1989). Administrative collateral estoppel in California–People v. Sims. Thomas F. Crosby, Jr., 40 Hastings L.J. 907 (1989). Asserting confidentiality: Need for a lay representative-claimant privilege. (1984) 15 Pac.L.J. 245. California supreme court survey; a review of decisions: July 1982-November 1982. (1983) 10 Pepp.L.Rev. 835. Fair procedure in welfare hearings. David R. Packard (1969) 42 S.Cal.L.Rev. 600. Organizations and administrative practice. Gene Livingston (1974) 26 Hastings L.J. 91. Supreme court of California, 1981-1982 foreword: Emerging court. Stephen R. Barnett (1983) 71 Cal.L.Rev. 1134. Welfare fair hearings: Legal problems of administrative practice. (1972) 5 U.C.Davis L.Rev. 542. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 4 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11182&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11184&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000213&DocName=CAHSS127400&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10051&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10612&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10602&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10602&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS18494&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10951&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS9&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10050&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS53926&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS53926&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS51014.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS51014.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS53452&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS56452&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS53892&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS53892&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0101322236 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0101322236 LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR Library 130 ALR 882, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as Condition of Resort to Court in Respect of Right Claimed Under Social Security or Old Age Acts. Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 58, Right to Administrative Hearing–State Statutory Right. CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 61, Filing of Request; Priority, Setting and Notice of Hearing. CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 67, Judicial Review–Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as Prerequis- ite. Cal. Civ. Prac. Family Law Litigation 21:112, Grievance Procedures. Forms California Transactions Forms–Family Law 6:92, Grievance Procedures. Treatises and Practice Aids Rutter, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Trials & Evidence Ch. 8E-A, A. Privileges. Simons California Evidence Manual 5:25, Who Qualifies as a Lawyer? 2 Witkin Cal. Evid. 4th Witnesses 103, (S 103) Exception: Representative in AFDC Hearing. 1 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Attorneys 85, (S 85) Allocation of Functions. 8 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Extraordinary Writs 264, Decision Applying Invalid Regulation. 7 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Judgment 339, (S 339) Collateral Estoppel Applied. 24 Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. 5480, Lawyer . NOTES OF DECISIONS Administrative remedies, exhaustion of 17 Attachment of right 10 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 5 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000104&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1921025838 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440187 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440196 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0126997&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0292794232 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0121642&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0111892144 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0106774&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0110418674 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0137834&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0282161936 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155603&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289755468 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155559&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289833582 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155581&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289845343 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155575&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289842224 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0102228&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0104502158 Authorized representative 13 Child support 9 Confrontation rights 8 Construction with other laws 2 County representative 12 Criminal prosecutions 14 Due process 1 Evidentiary hearing 6 Exhaustion of administrative remedies 17 Fair hearing 4 Hearing officer 7 Informal hearing 5 Interim or temporary services 11 Jurisdiction 16 Notice requirements 3 Prosecutions, criminal 14 Rehearing 15 Review 18 Temporary services 11 1. Due process Administrative hearings regarding public social services benefits must be meaningful and encompass all applic- ant’s public assistance claims, when Department of Social Services (DSS) administrative hearing process is ap- plicant’s exclusive remedy, since administrative process is federal due process right which state fair hearing statute was enacted to implement. Knight v. McMahon (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 832, 26 Cal.App.4th 747, review denied. Administrative Law And Procedure 469.1; Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5 2. Construction with other laws Where mandatory duty placed upon director of state department of benefit payments was to act within 60 days after referee submitted report and not necessarily to act by awarding benefits to a particular applicant, alleged injuries in the nature of injury to applicant’s health and mental pain and suffering and emotional distress under- gone by applicant did not result from failure of director to comply with regulations making it mandatory for him to render decision within 60 days so that liability of the state could not be predicated on Gov.C. 815.6 which declares that failure to comply with applicable statutory or regulatory standards is negligence. Williams v. State, Bd. of Control (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 133 Cal.Rptr. 539, 62 Cal.App.3d 960. States 112.2(2) In determining whether petitioners were needy persons within 12000 et seq. (repealed), procedure set forth in this code, rather than that in Gov.C. 11501 et seq., was properly followed. Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept. of Cal. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 524, 289 P.2d 485. Social Security And Public Welfare 177 3. Notice requirements Welfare department regulation providing pretermination procedure for terminating benefits being received under categorical assistance programs was violative of due process provisions of State and Federal Constitutions West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 6 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1994144893 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1994144893 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak469.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS815.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123265 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123265 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=360k112.2%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11501&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak177 Const. Art. 1, 7; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14) insofar as allowing only three days’ notice in which to prepare for hearing and insofar as failing to provide that recipient might present his case before person making decision. McCullough v. Terzian (1970) 87 Cal.Rptr. 195, 2 Cal.3d 647, 470 P.2d 4. Constitutional Law 4116 4. Fair hearing Fair hearing mechanism provided to applicants and recipients of public social services is intended to provide speedy and informed manner of challenging administrative action which may reduce or terminate vitally needed benefits. Knight v. McMahon (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 832, 26 Cal.App.4th 747, review denied. Ad- ministrative Law And Procedure 469.1; Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5 In fair hearing provided to applicants and recipients of public social services, only limitation upon issues, fac- tual or legal, which may be raised is that they must be reasonably related to request for hearing or other issues mutually agreed upon by either party prior to or at hearing. Knight v. McMahon (App. 2 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 832, 26 Cal.App.4th 747, review denied. Administrative Law And Procedure 469.1; Social Se- curity And Public Welfare 8.5 5. Informal hearing District attorney’s participation in informal administrative fair hearing challenging county’s determination that it made overpayments of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamp benefits did not de- prive benefits recipients of due process of law, based upon alleged chilling effect that district attorney’s pres- ence had on recipients’ assertion of their rights. Rauber v. Herman (App. 1 Dist. 1991) 280 Cal.Rptr. 785, 229 Cal.App.3d 942, rehearing denied. Constitutional Law 4117; District And Prosecuting Attorneys 9 6. Evidentiary hearing State welfare termination regulations, which did not afford recipient an evidentiary hearing at which he could personally appear to offer oral evidence and confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, did not satis- fy requirements of due process clause. Wheeler v. Montgomery, N.D.Cal.1968, 296 F.Supp. 138, probable juris- diction noted 89 S.Ct. 1452, 394 U.S. 970, 22 L.Ed.2d 751, reversed 90 S.Ct. 1026, 397 U.S. 280, 25 L.Ed.2d 307, dissenting opinion 90 S.Ct. 1028, 397 U.S. 280, 25 L.Ed.2d 307. Due process right of public assistance recipients to a pretermination evidentiary hearing before actual cessation or reduction of aid intervenes to prevent a grievous loss without a prior opportunity for contest. Webb v. Swoap (App. 3 Dist. 1974) 114 Cal.Rptr. 897, 40 Cal.App.3d 191. Constitutional Law 4116 7. Hearing officer Use of law student employed by county counsel as hearing officer did not deny due process to welfare recipients whose benefits were terminated for fixed duration due to their failure to comply with various aspects of county’s work-for-relief program, where law student did not participate in decision to terminate benefits. Jennings v. Jones (App. 1 Dist. 1985) 212 Cal.Rptr. 134, 165 Cal.App.3d 1083, review denied. Constitutional Law 4130 8. Confrontation rights General assistance recipients’ rights of confrontation and cross-examination were impermissibly denied by regu- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 7 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000203&DocName=CACNART1S7&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970131510 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1994144893 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak469.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak469.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1994144893 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1994144893 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak469.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991085456 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991085456 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4117 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=131k9 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968115696 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969247315 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970241805 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103972 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103972 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985114767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985114767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4130 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4130 lations governing termination of general assistance benefits, where caseworker who made decision to terminate benefits did not appear at pretermination hearing and no procedure existed by which his or her appearance could be required. Jennings v. Jones (App. 1 Dist. 1985) 212 Cal.Rptr. 134, 165 Cal.App.3d 1083, review denied. Criminal Law 662.3 9. Child support Former welfare recipient’s due process rights were not violated by lack of administrative hearing to contest cal- culations of county district attorney, acting as administrator of Child Support Enforcement Services (CSES) pro- gram, about amounts payable to her on her claim for enforcement of prior accruals of child support obligations under Social Security Act, where district attorney provided written review of her claims and detailed accounting of proceeds from support enforcement action. Pereira-Goodman v. Anderson (App. 1 Dist. 1997) 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 197, 54 Cal.App.4th 864, review denied. Constitutional Law 4120; Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5 10. Attachment of right Former welfare recipient was not entitled to administrative fair hearing under social services statute to contest calculations of county district attorney, acting as administrator of Child Support Enforcement Services (CSES) program, about amounts payable to recipient on her claim for enforcement of prior accruals of child support ob- ligations under Social Security Act as statute limited hearing right to applicants for, or recipients of, public as- sistance who were contesting decisions of county welfare department regarding assistance payments. Pereira- Goodman v. Anderson (App. 1 Dist. 1997) 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 197, 54 Cal.App.4th 864, review denied. Social Se- curity And Public Welfare 8.5 Referral of case involving woman, alleged to have fraudulently obtained welfare payments, to Department of Social Services special investigation unit, investigation, and subsequent referral by unit to district attorney were internal actions having no immediate or direct impact on woman’s application for receipt of benefits; therefore, they were not actions which could be challenged by fair hearing. Madrid v. McMahon (App. 4 Dist. 1986) 228 Cal.Rptr. 14, 183 Cal.App.3d 151, review denied. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.19 Unsuccessful applicant for welfare benefits may contest the validity of regulation which mandates the denial of his application both in the fair hearing provided pursuant to this section and in subsequent judicial review pursu- ant to a writ of administrative mandamus. Woods v. Superior Court of Butte County (1981) 170 Cal.Rptr. 484, 28 Cal.3d 668, 620 P.2d 1032. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5; Social Security And Public Wel- fare 8.20 In proceeding brought by county district attorney to enjoin collection agency from taking assignments for col- lecting past-due child and\/or spousal support from persons who had received public assistance in county unless county first collected amount due it, no error occurred in granting demurrer of California state department of be- nefit payments to collection agency’s cross complaint with respect to right of a former welfare recipient to a fair hearing before department, since merely providing an accounting of actual welfare expenditures to district attor- ney was not an action of county welfare department relating to a person’s application for or receipt of aid, which established right to fair hearing described in this section. Santa Clara County v. Support, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1979) 152 Cal.Rptr. 754, 89 Cal.App.3d 687. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.19 Hearing under provision of this section providing that dissatisfied recipient of public social services shall, upon West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 8 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985114767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k662.3 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997099873 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997099873 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4120 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997099873 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997099873 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986135989 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986135989 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.19 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979101083 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979101083 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.19 filing request with the department of public social services, be accorded opportunity for fair hearing was not pre- requisite to discharge hearing by civil service commission concerning alleged overpayment of AFDC benefits to eligibility worker with department of public social services. Rivera v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com- mission (App. 2 Dist. 1979) 151 Cal.Rptr. 480, 87 Cal.App.3d 1001. Officers And Public Employees 72.20 One, who had been a recipient of aid for needy children under 11200 et seq. (repealed), but whose aid had been terminated by county for failure to list any employer or any earnings, had right under this section to a hear- ing before director of department of social welfare. Madera County v. Holcomb (App. 5 Dist. 1968) 66 Cal.Rptr. 428, 259 Cal.App.2d 226. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.16(2) 11. Interim or temporary services Even if initial fair hearing decision were found to be erroneous on rehearing or direct review, county would re- main liable for interim payments as the right to receive benefits vests when the initial decision is adopted by the director of the state agency. Blackburn v. Sarsfield (App. 1 Dist. 1981) 178 Cal.Rptr. 15, 125 Cal.App.3d 143. Social Security And Public Welfare 9.1 Petitioner, who applied for aid to the needy disabled and who was given immediate financial assistance pending decision on his application and whose application was thereafter denied, was not entitled to continue to receive temporary benefits pending decision on his administrative appeal from denial of application. Jackson v. Carleson (App. 3 Dist. 1974) 113 Cal.Rptr. 890, 39 Cal.App.3d 12. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 12. County representative District attorney’s representation of county in informal administrative fair hearing challenging county’s de- termination that it made overpayments of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamp be- nefits does not exceed district attorney’s prosecutorial authority, even if county has county counsel, despite civil nature of proceeding. Rauber v. Herman (App. 1 Dist. 1991) 280 Cal.Rptr. 785, 229 Cal.App.3d 942, rehearing denied. District And Prosecuting Attorneys 9 13. Authorized representative Use of term authorized representative rather than counsel or attorney in this section made clear that claimants have right to be represented by lay representatives as well as by members of the bar, and recognized that assistance through representative was necessary to insure the meaningfulness of the fair hearing right provided by this section. Welfare Rights Organization v. Crisan (1983) 190 Cal.Rptr. 919, 33 Cal.3d 766, 661 P.2d 1073. 14. Criminal prosecutions Prosecution for fraudulently obtaining AFDC benefits was not precluded on ground that an administrative find- ing that defendant had not received any overpayment rendered the county’s restitution demand void and thus pre- cluded the prosecution because the requirement under 11483 that restitution be sought prior to bringing a crim- inal action was not met. People v. Sims (1982) 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 32 Cal.3d 468, 651 P.2d 321. Fraud 69(1) 15. Rehearing Section 10950 et seq., as implemented by regulations, makes it mandatory that decision be rendered within 90 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 9 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979100935 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979100935 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=283k72.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103867 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103867 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991085456 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=131k9 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1983120024 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1983120024 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982142480 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=184k69%281%29 days of request for fair hearing and requires immediate implementation of the decision notwithstanding the fact that a local welfare agency may be granted a rehearing; granting of local welfare agency’s request for rehearing will not postpone payment of benefits to a qualified recipient so that California rehearing procedure permitting decision of rehearing to be made more than 90 days after original request for fair hearing does not conflict with federal regulation. Westfall v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 750, 58 Cal.App.3d 109. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.16(2) 16. Jurisdiction Department of Social Services did not have jurisdiction to conduct hearing on adequacy of child support en- forcement services by family support division of county district attorney’s office (FSD); enforcement services were not public social services within meaning of statute providing for hearing if applicant for or recipient of public social services is dissatisfied with county department’s action relating to application for or receipt of pub- lic social services, and FSD was not county department . Campos v. Anderson (App. 3 Dist. 1997) 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 350, 57 Cal.App.4th 784, review denied. Child Support 470 17. Exhaustion of administrative remedies No exception to requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies applied to permit juvenile court to order Department of Children and Family Services to make retroactive Aid to Families with Dependent Children- -Foster Care (AFDC-FC) payments to relative caregiver of detained children who was denied AFDC-FC funding due to lack of criminal background check results for caregiver and an adult nephew living in home, and who had not made an effort to challenge the denial of AFDC-FC funding directly with Department of Social Services (DSS), where there was no indication that such a determination would have been outside the scope of DSS’s au- thority or would necessarily have rendered a denial. In re Darlene T. (App. 2 Dist. 2008) 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 119. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 Where plaintiffs in class action did not seek to secure payment of welfare benefits but sought declaratory and in- junctive relief and mandate in order to establish the illegality of grant adjustments and to prohibit continued re- sort to that method of recouping overpayments due to administrative error where the recipient has fully reported, which relief was not provided for by statute, doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not applic- able and was not a jurisdictional bar to the action. Oliva v. Swoap (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 130 Cal.Rptr. 411, 59 Cal.App.3d 130. Declaratory Judgment 204 Recipients of aid to families with dependent children and of aid to blind, in seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for class of minors allegedly wrongfully coerced to work, were not first required to exhaust any administrative remedies, in view of fact that such remedies did not exist. Ramos v. Madera County (1971) 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 4 Cal.3d 685, 484 P.2d 93. Declaratory Judgment 209 Relief sought by welfare applicants who, on their own behalf and as representatives of all persons eligible for benefits, sought writ of mandamus commanding county welfare department to advise all persons requesting wel- fare aid of their rights to make written application for benefits and to administrative appeal could not have been obtained by administrative appeal and applicants were not precluded from seeking writ of mandamus in superior court on theory that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Diaz v. Quitoriano (App. 3 Dist. 1969) 74 Cal.Rptr. 358, 268 Cal.App.2d 807. Mandamus 4(5) 18. Review West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 10 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102282 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997187045 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997187045 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Ek470 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0007047&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2016252556 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102357 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102357 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=118Ak204 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971123728 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971123728 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=118Ak209 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969111646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969111646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k4%285%29 Where act reviewed was adjudicatory in that aid to families with dependent children recipient exercised her right under this section to demand fair hearing of decision to reduce grant, and that hearing resulted in adverse de- cision, her exclusive remedy was to file action for writ of administrative mandate in superior court pursuant to C.C.P. 1094.5, and in both proceedings she was entitled to challenge validity of underlying regulation. Green v. Obledo (1981) 172 Cal.Rptr. 206, 29 Cal.3d 126, 624 P.2d 256. Mandamus 100 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10950, CA WEL & INST 10950 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10950 Page 11 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981109695 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981109695 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k100 Effective: January 1, 2008 West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10951. Request; time; good cause for late filing; implementation (a) No person shall be entitled to a hearing pursuant to this chapter unless he or she files his or her request for the same within 90 days after the order or action complained of. (b)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a person shall be entitled to a hearing pursuant to this chapter if he or she files the request more than 90 days after the order or action complained of and there is good cause for filing the request beyond the 90-day period. The director may determine whether good cause exists. (2) For purposes of this subdivision good cause means a substantial and compelling reason beyond the party’s control, considering the length of the delay, the diligence of the party making the request, and the potential pre- judice to the other party. The inability of a person to understand an adequate and language compliant notice, in and of itself, shall not constitute good cause. In no event shall the department grant a request for a hearing where the request is filed more than 180 days after the order or action complained of. (3) Nothing in this section shall preclude the application of the principles of equity jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law. (c) Notwithstanding the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the department shall implement this section through an all- county information notice no later than January 1, 2008. The department may also provide further instructions through training notes. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1979, c. 1170, 7; Stats.2007, c. 502 (A.B.921), 1.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2008 Electronic Update West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10951 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10951%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11340&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11340&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28I2C5366E078-FB11DC8088D-56C8EB60CC3%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28I2C5366E078-FB11DC8088D-56C8EB60CC3%29&FindType=l 2007 Legislation Stats.2007, c. 502 (A.B.921), redesignated the former text of the section as subd. (a); made gender neutral changes; and added subds. (b) and (c). 2001 Main Volume The 1979 amendment substituted 90 days for one year . An amendment of this section by 4 of Stats.1999, c. 803, failed to become operative under the provisions of 11 of that Act. Section 11 of Stats.1999, c. 803 (A.B.472), provides: Sections 1 and 2 of this bill shall become operative only if either Assembly Bill 196 [Stats.1999, c. 478] or Senate Bill 542 [Stats.1999, c. 480], or both, are enacted into law during the 1999-2000 Regular Session, and as enacted, either or both bills add Division 17 (commencing with Section 17000) to the Family Code, in which case Sections 3, 4, 5, [amending Welfare and Institutions Code 10950, 10951, and 10963] and 6 [The bill did not contain a Section 6] of this bill shall not become operative. Derivation: Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1893, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.1, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Computation of time, see Code of Civil Procedure 12 and 12a and Government Code 6800 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Medical assistance program, notice of action, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50179.5. Notice of action-Medi-Cal-only determinations or redeterminations, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50179. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Special project: Annotated California Statutes of Limitation. 23 Sw.U.L.Rev. 689 (1994). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10951 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10950&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10963&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS12&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS12A&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS6800&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50179.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50179&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001244&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0104721204 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 61, Filing of Request; Priority, Setting and Notice of Hearing. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10951, CA WEL & INST 10951 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10951 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440190 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10952. Setting; notice The department shall set the hearing to commence within 30 working days after the request is filed, and, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, shall give all parties concerned written notice of the time and place of the hearing. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 110, p. 330, 1.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1982 amendment substituted 30 working for 45 prior to days. Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1891, 1. Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1893, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.2, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. CROSS REFERENCES West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10952 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10952%29&FindType=l Computation of time, see Code of Civil Procedure 12 and 12a and Government Code 6800 et seq. Investigations and hearings by state departments, see Government Code 11180 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 61, Filing of Request; Priority, Setting and Notice of Hearing. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10952, CA WEL & INST 10952 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10952 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS12&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS12A&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS6800&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11180&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440190 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10952.5. Position statement; availability If regulations require a public or private agency to write a position statement concerning the issues in question in a fair hearing, or if the public or private agency chooses to develop such a statement, not less than two working days prior to the date of a hearing provided for pursuant to this chapter, the public or private agency shall make available to the applicant for, or recipient of, public social services requesting a fair hearing, a copy of the public or private agency’s position statement on the forthcoming hearing. The public or private agency shall make the copy available to the applicant or recipient at the county welfare department. A public or private agency shall be required to comply with the provisions of this section only if the public or private agency has received a 10-day prior notice of the date and time of the scheduled hearing. If the public or private agency does not make the position statement available not less than two working days prior to the hearing or if the public or private agency decides to modify the position statement, the hearing shall be postponed upon the request of the applicant or recipient, provided an applicant or recipient agrees to waive the right to obtain a decision on the hearing within the deadline that would otherwise be applicable under regula- tions. A postponement for reason of the public or private agency not making the position statement available within not less than two working days shall be deemed a postponement for good cause for purposes of determin- ing eligibility to any applicable benefits pending disposition of the hearing. For purposes of this section public or private agency shall not include the State Department of Health Ser- vices. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1982, c. 933, p. 3391, 1. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 415, 2.5, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1986 amendment substituted public or private agency for county throughout the section; substituted public or private agency’s for county’s in the first sentence of the first paragraph; substituted 10-day for ten-day in the last sentence of the first paragraph; and added the third paragraph. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10952.5 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10952.5%29&FindType=l CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Opportunity to document satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.5. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. Verification of satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.6. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 62, Issues at Hearing; Continuance; Manner of Reporting Proceedings. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10952.5, CA WEL & INST 10952.5 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10952.5 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440191 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10953. Conduct A hearing under this chapter shall be conducted by administrative law judges employed by the department, un- less the director orders that it shall be conducted by himself or herself. However, the director may contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct hearings. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any hearing conducted under this chapter. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1970, c. 1093, p. 1939, 1; Stats.1977, c. 1252, p. 4654, 790, operative July 1, 1978; Stats.1986, c. 415, 3, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1970 amendment added the proviso to the first sentence of the first paragraph, added the second sentence of such paragraph, and added the second paragraph. The 1977 amendment substituted Office of Administrative Hearings for Office of Administrative Procedure . The 1986 amendment rewrote the first paragraph, which had read: A hearing under this chapter shall be conducted by referees employed by the department, unless the director or- ders that it shall be conducted by himself or by the administrative adviser of the department in behalf of the dir- ector; provided, however, the director may contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct hear- ings in cases involving complicated issues of fact or law, or to reduce the backlog of cases. The limitations placed upon the kinds of cases conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings under this section shall not be considered jurisdictional. Derivation: Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1893, 4; Stats.1959, West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10953 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10953%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11500&FindType=Y c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.3, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Administrative law judge proposed decision, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10958, 10959. Conduct of rehearing, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10959, 10960. Hearings, delegation of power to conduct, see Government Code 11182. Hearings by department heads, see Government Code 11184 et seq. Office of administrative hearings, see Government Code 11370 et seq. Report on administration, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10602. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Administrative collateral estoppel in California: Critical evaluation of People v. Sims. Thomas F. Crosby, Jr., 40 Hastings L.J. 907 (1989). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 60, Additional Due Process Requirements–Scope of Hearing; Informality of Proceedings. Treatises and Practice Aids 9 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Administrative Proceedings 45, (S 45) Office of Administrative Hearings. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10953, CA WEL & INST 10953 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10953 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10958&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10959&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10959&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11182&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11184&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11370&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10602&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440189 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155585&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289847435 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10953 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10953.5. Administrative law judges; appointment; qualifications (a) The director has authority to appoint the department’s administrative law judges as provided in Section 10555. (b) Each administrative law judge shall have been admitted to practice law in this state and shall possess any other qualifications prescribed by the State Personnel Board. All persons in the office of the chief referee em- ployed as hearing officers by the department prior to the effective date of this section shall be deemed to be ad- ministrative law judges. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1986, c. 415, 4, eff. July 17, 1986.) CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10953.5, CA WEL & INST 10953.5 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10953.5 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10953.5%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10555&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10555&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10954. Powers of person conducting The director or administrative law judge conducting the hearing, shall have all of the powers and authority con- ferred upon the head of a department in Article 2 (commencing with Section 11180) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 415, 5, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1986 amendment substituted director or administrative law judge for director, administrative adviser, or referee, . Derivation: Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1893, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.4, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, fair hearing, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10954 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10954%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11180&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11180&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10954, CA WEL & INST 10954 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10954 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10955. Impartiality; informality; evidence; appearance; counsel The hearing shall be conducted in an impartial and informal manner in order to encourage free and open discus- sion by participants. All testimony shall be submitted under oath or affirmation. The person conducting the hear- ing shall not be bound by rules of procedure or evidence applicable in judicial proceedings. At the hearing the applicant or recipient may appear in person with counsel of his own choosing, or in person and without such counsel. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1891, 1. Former 445.5, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. CROSS REFERENCES Affirmation in lieu of oath, see Code of Civil Procedure 2015.6. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10955 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10955%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS2015.6&FindType=L Counsel, Fees, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10962. Relief law of 1945, see Welfare and Institutions Code 18494. Right to, see Const. Art. I, 15. Oaths, administration of, see Code of Civil Procedure 128, 177 and Government Code 1225. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES California supreme court survey; a review of decisions: July 1982-November 1982. (1983) 10 Pepp.L.Rev. 835. Fair procedure in welfare hearings. David R. Packard (1969) 42 S.Cal.L.Rev. 600. Hearsay and administrative process: A review and reconsideration of state of law of certain evidentiary proced- ures applicable in California administrative proceedings. Ronald K. L. Collins (1975) 8 Loy.L.Rev. (Calif.) 632. Organizations and administrative practice. Gene Livingston (1974) 26 Hastings L.J. 91. Welfare fair hearings: Legal problems of administrative practice. (1972) 5 U.C.Davis L.Rev. 542. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5, 8.10. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 10, 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 59, Additional Due Process Requirements. CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 60, Additional Due Process Requirements–Scope of Hearing; Informality of Proceedings. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10955, CA WEL & INST 10955 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10955 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS18494&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000203&DocName=CACNART1S15&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS128&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS177&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS1225&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.10 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693380 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440188 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440189 END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10955 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10956. Perpetuation of proceedings The proceedings at the hearing shall be reported by a phonographic reporter or otherwise perpetuated by mech- anical, electronic, or other means capable of reproduction or transcription. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume Derivation: Former 445.6, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Official records and other official writings, see Evidence Code 1280 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.1. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 12. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10956 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10956%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000207&DocName=CAEVS1280&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693382 RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 62, Issues at Hearing; Continuance; Manner of Reporting Proceedings. NOTES OF DECISIONS Electronic recording 1 Supplementary evidence 2 1. Electronic recording It is not unlawful for director of state department of social welfare to use an audible electronic record rather than a paper transcript in reviewing proposed decision made by referee. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.15 2. Supplementary evidence In mandamus proceeding in superior court by county to challenge authority of director of department of social welfare to hold a hearing at request of one whose aid for needy children had been terminated, and challenging decision of director, superior court did not err in refusing to permit county to introduce additional evidence be- cause certain portions of tape recording device used before referee were unintelligible, where inaudible portions were intelligible by resort to remarks preceding and following inaudible portions. Madera County v. Holcomb (App. 5 Dist. 1968) 66 Cal.Rptr. 428, 259 Cal.App.2d 226. Mandamus 173 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10956, CA WEL & INST 10956 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10956 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440191 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k173 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10957. Continuance; commencement of payments on award of aid The person conducting the hearing, upon good cause shown, may continue the hearing for a period of not to ex- ceed 30 days. When the refusal of a county to accept a signed application for aid or services is an issue, the dir- ector may require the county to accept the application, and may continue the case until the results of the invest- igation have been reported to him or her. In any such case in which aid is awarded by the director or his or her designee, the payments shall commence at the time indicated by the director or his or her designee. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3992, 5. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 415, 6, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1986 amendment inserted or her at the end of the second sentence; and twice inserted or his or her de- signee in the third sentence. Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1. Former 445.7, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10957 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10957%29&FindType=l CROSS REFERENCES Investigation of applications, see Welfare and Institutions Code 11055. Investigations by department heads, see Government Code 11180 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5, 8.15, 9.1. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 12 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 62, Issues at Hearing; Continuance; Manner of Reporting Proceedings. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10957, CA WEL & INST 10957 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10957 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS11055&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11180&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693382 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440191 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10958. Administrative law judge; proposed decision If the hearing is conducted by an administrative law judge, he or she shall prepare a fair, impartial, and inde- pendent proposed decision, in writing and in such format that it may be adopted as the director’s decision and, after approval of the decision by the chief administrative law judge of the department, the chief administrative law judge shall file a copy of the proposed decision, within 75 days after the conclusion of the hearing, with the director. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3993, 5. Amended by Stats.1981, c. 498, p. 1851, 2; Stats.1986, c. 415, 7, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1981 amendment inserted fair, impartial, and independent preceding decision . The 1986 amendment rewrote the section, which had read: If the hearing is conducted by a referee, he shall prepare a fair, impartial, and independent proposed decision, in writing and in such form that it may be adopted as the decision in the case, and, after approval of the decision by the chief referee of the department, shall file a copy of the proposed decision, within 75 days after the conclu- sion of the hearing, with the director. Derivation: Former 104.5 added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1593, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.8, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Hearing officer, see Government Code 11370.3. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10958 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10958%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11370.3&FindType=L CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 63, Proposed Decision; Further Hearing. NOTES OF DECISIONS Due process 1 Final decision 2 Review 3 1. Due process State welfare termination regulations, which did not afford recipient an evidentiary hearing at which he could personally appear to offer oral evidence and confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, did not satis- fy requirements of due process clause. Wheeler v. Montgomery, N.D.Cal.1968, 296 F.Supp. 138, probable juris- diction noted 89 S.Ct. 1452, 394 U.S. 970, 22 L.Ed.2d 751, reversed 90 S.Ct. 1026, 397 U.S. 280, 25 L.Ed.2d 307, dissenting opinion 90 S.Ct. 1028, 397 U.S. 280, 25 L.Ed.2d 307. 2. Final decision Legislative scheme within which director of state department of social welfare must act after a fair hearing be- fore a referee establishes that director, and not referee, must issue final decision, whether or not he has complied with 30-day time limit of 10959. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.15 3. Review Provisions of 10959 and this section dealing with time limit within which director of department of social wel- fare shall provide a record of hearing before referee for purpose of determining whether aid for needy children under 11200 et seq. has properly been terminated are directory and not jurisdictional, and recipient of aid West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10958 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440192 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968115696 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969247315 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970241805 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 should not lose his right to review after a hearing before a referee because of director’s neglect of duty. Madera County v. Holcomb (App. 5 Dist. 1968) 66 Cal.Rptr. 428, 259 Cal.App.2d 226. Social Security And Public Wel- fare 194.16(2) West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10958, CA WEL & INST 10958 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10958 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10958.1. Issues addressed at hearing The issues at the hearing shall be limited to those issues which are reasonably related to the request for hearing or other issues identified by either party which they have mutually agreed, prior to or at the hearing, to discuss. All of those issues shall be addressed in the hearing decisions. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1986, c. 415, 7.5, eff. July 17, 1986.) CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Opportunity to document satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.5. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. Verification of satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.6. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 62, Issues at Hearing; Continuance; Manner of Reporting Proceedings. NOTES OF DECISIONS West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10958.1 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10958.1%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440191 Findings 1 1. Findings In proceeding on application for Medi-Cal benefits on the basis of disability, there was no requirement of specif- ic findings by administrative law judge or Department of Health Services as to credibility of claimant’s testi- mony regarding disabling pain, particularly in light of dearth of testimony regarding pain at administrative hear- ing; adequate record for review was provided by issuance of statement of decision. Cooper v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 282 Cal.Rptr. 492, 230 Cal.App.3d 1291, rehearing denied , modified. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10958.1, CA WEL & INST 10958.1 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10958.1 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991119325 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991119325 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10959. Director’s powers after receipt of proposed decision; rehearing Within 30 days after the department has received a copy of the administrative law judge’s proposed decision, the director may adopt the decision in its entirety; decide the matter himself or herself on the record, including the transcript, with or without taking additional evidence; or order a further hearing to be conducted by himself or herself, or another administrative law judge on behalf of the director. Failure of the director to adopt the pro- posed decision, decide the matter himself or herself on the record, including the transcript, with or without tak- ing additional evidence or order a further hearing within the 30 days shall be deemed an affirmation of the pro- posed decision. If the director decides the matter, a copy of his or her decision shall be served on the applicant or recipient and on the affected county, and, if his or her decision differs materially from the proposed decision of the administrative law judge, a copy of that proposed decision shall also be served on the applicant or recipi- ent and on the affected county. If a further hearing is ordered, it shall be conducted in the same manner and within the same time limits specified for the original hearing. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3993, 5. Amended by Stats.1974, c. 1056, p. 2275, 1; Stats.1986, c. 415, 8, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1974 amendment added the second sentence; and substituted the department has received a copy for receiving a copy in the first sentence. The 1986 amendment rewrote the section, which had read: Within 30 days after the department has received a copy of the referee’s proposed decision, the director may ad- opt the decision in its entirety; decide the matter himself on the record, including the transcript, with or without taking additional evidence; or order a rehearing to be conducted by himself, the administrative adviser of the de- partment or another referee in behalf of the director. Failure of the director to adopt the proposed decision, de- cide the matter himself on the record, including the transcript, with or without taking additional evidence or or- der a rehearing within the 30 days shall be deemed an affirmation of the proposed decision. If the director de- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10959 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10959%29&FindType=l cides the matter, a copy of his decision shall be served on the applicant or recipient and on the affected county, and, if his decision differs materially from the proposed decision of the referee, a copy of that proposed decision shall also be served on the applicant or recipient and on the affected county. If a rehearing is ordered, it shall be conducted in the same manner and within the same time limits specified for the original hearing. Derivation: Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1593, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.9, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Digest of decisions, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10964. Director’s decision, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10961. Judicial review, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10962. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 61, Filing of Request; Priority, Setting and Notice of Hearing. CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 63, Proposed Decision; Further Hearing. NOTES OF DECISIONS Further hearing 3 Questions of fact 5 Review 6 Statement of reasons 4 Thirty-day time limit 2 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10959 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10964&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10961&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440192 Validity 1 1. Validity Statute which permits Director of Department of Human Services to order further hearings in Medi-Cal disabil- ity case based solely upon his disagreement with administrative law judge’s recommendation, and without limit- ation on number of hearings that can be ordered, was not unconstitutional delegation of power to Director, as Director’s exercise of delegated power was subject to judicial review, and as lack of restriction on number of further hearings did not confer any additional power on Director, who was not bound by administrative law judge’s decision and could decide matter himself. Chatterjee v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 283 Cal.Rptr. 60, 231 Cal.App.3d 1348, review denied. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 2. Thirty-day time limit Substantial evidence supported trial court’s judgment that administrative law judge correctly determined that agency received prior administrative law judge’s proposed decision on Medi-Cal benefits application less than 30 days prior to agency’s decision ordering a further hearing; although evidence presented by agency was sub- ject to justifiable suspicion, its receipt of proposed decision on date claimed was not physically impossible or wholly unreasonable. Oldham v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 235 Cal.App.3d 1046. Social Se- curity And Public Welfare 181 Third administrative law judge to consider applicant’s request for Medi-Cal benefits correctly found that he and thus the agency were bound by the decision of the first administrative law judge that the applicant was not eli- gible for retroactive medical benefits under the medically indigent program, which became final when applicant failed to timely request a rehearing or petition the court for review of the decision. Oldham v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 235 Cal.App.3d 1046. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 Director of state department of social welfare maintained power to decide case involving application for aid to needy disabled, even though director failed to comply with mandatory 30-day time limit for deciding matter after receiving copy of referee’s proposed decision, since director, and not referee, had to make final decision; director’s tardiness is no reason for depriving either applicant or taxpayers of right to final decision. Millen v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 130 Cal.Rptr. 387, 58 Cal.App.3d 943. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 Time limit under this section of 30 days within which director of state department of social welfare must act after receiving a copy of referee’s proposed decision is mandatory. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.15 3. Further hearing Amendment to statute allowing director of agency to order a further hearing on an application for Medi-Cal benefits, rather than a rehearing as used in prior version of statute, merely indicated legislative intent to clarify previous language but did not indicate an intent to change the meaning of the statute or support a presumption that different meanings for the terms were intended; the terms were interchangeable, both referring to a new hearing on all or some of the issues raised in the previous hearing, with introduction of new evidence but pos- sibly relying on evidence presented at previous hearing as well. Oldham v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 235 Cal.App.3d 1046. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10959 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991117231 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991117231 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102353 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102353 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 Fact that director ordered a further hearing to obtain review of durational denial to obtain disability file so that hearing officer could review evidence in Medi-Cal benefits case was not invalid because it ordered a further hearing rather than rehearing which would have had the same result, that is, a new hearing on both issues ad- dressed at previous hearing. Oldham v. Kizer (App. 2 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 235 Cal.App.3d 1046. So- cial Security And Public Welfare 181 4. Statement of reasons Decision of director of state department of social welfare denying assistance to claimant in form of aid to the needy disabled would be annulled where director did not specify reasons for his decision or identify evidence re- lied on by him. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Secur- ity And Public Welfare 181 Director of department of social welfare, who, after applicants were found eligible by referee, denied Aid to the Needy Disabled to such applicants on grounds that their impairments were not total and permanent and did not prevent their employment, was required, as he would have been if he had overruled a determination by referee that a claimant was not totally and permanently disabled, to state reasons for his decision, though he was not re- quired to indicate why he disagreed with referee. Rogers v. Carleson (App. 3 Dist. 1973) 106 Cal.Rptr. 140, 30 Cal.App.3d 54. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 5. Questions of fact Determination of question of need in proceeding upon application for benefits under the Old Age Security Act is one of fact for social welfare board, but board must act in accordance with statutory definitions set by legislature for the standard of need. Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept. of Cal. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 524, 289 P.2d 485. Social Se- curity And Public Welfare 177 6. Review Provisions of 10958 and this section dealing with time limit within which director of department of social wel- fare shall provide a record of hearing before referee for purpose of determining whether aid for needy children under 11200 et seq. has properly been terminated are directory and not jurisdictional, and recipient of aid should not lose his right to review after a hearing before a referee because of director’s neglect of duty. Madera County v. Holcomb (App. 5 Dist. 1968) 66 Cal.Rptr. 428, 259 Cal.App.2d 226. Social Security And Public Wel- fare 194.16(2) West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10959, CA WEL & INST 10959 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10959 Page 4 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1991179084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103281 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103281 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak177 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak177 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 Effective: January 1, 2008 West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10960. Request for rehearing; time; grounds; final decision; good cause for late filing; imple- mentation (a) Within 30 days after receiving the decision of the director, which is the proposed decision of an administrat- ive law judge adopted by the director as final, a final decision rendered by an administrative law judge, or a de- cision issued by the director himself or herself, the affected county or applicant or recipient may file a request with the director for a rehearing. The director shall immediately serve a copy of the request on the other party to the hearing and that other party may within five days of the service file with the director a written statement sup- porting or objecting to the request. The director shall grant or deny the request no later than the 35th working day after the request is made to ensure the prompt and efficient administration of the hearing process. If the dir- ector grants the request, the rehearing shall be conducted in the same manner and subject to the same time limits as the original hearing. (b) The grounds for requesting a rehearing are as follows: (1) The adopted decision is inconsistent with the law. (2) The adopted decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. (3) The adopted decision is not supported by the findings. (4) The adopted decision does not address all of the claims or issues raised by the parties. (5) The adopted decision does not address all of the claims or issues supported by the record or evidence. (6) The adopted decision does not set forth sufficient information to determine the basis for its legal conclusion. (7) Newly discovered evidence, that was not in custody or available to the party requesting rehearing at the time of the hearing, is now available and the new evidence, had it been introduced, could have changed the hearing West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10960 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10960%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10960%29&FindType=l decision. (8) For any other reason necessary to prevent the abuse of discretion or an error of law, or for any other reason consistent with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (c) The notice granting or denying the rehearing request shall explain the reasons and legal basis for granting or denying the request for rehearing. (d) The decision of the director, which is the proposed decision of an administrative law judge adopted by the director as final, a final decision rendered by an administrative law judge, or a decision issued by the director himself or herself, remains final pending a request for a rehearing. Only after rehearing is granted is the decision no longer the final decision in the case. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a rehearing request or decision shall not be a prerequisite to fil- ing an action under Section 10962. (f)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an applicant or recipient may otherwise be entitled to a rehearing pursu- ant to this chapter if he or she files a request more than 30 days after the decision of the director is issued, or if he or she did not receive a copy of the decision of the director, or if there is good cause for filing beyond the 30-day period. The director may determine whether good cause exists. (2) For purposes of this subdivision good cause means a substantial and compelling reason beyond the party’s control, considering the length of the delay, the diligence of the party making the request, and the potential pre- judice to the other party. The inability of a person to understand an adequate and language compliant notice, in and of itself, shall not constitute good cause. In no event shall the department grant a request for a hearing where the request is filed more than 180 days after the order or action complained of. (3) Nothing in this section shall preclude the application of the principles of equity jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law. (g) Notwithstanding the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), the department shall implement this section through an all- county information notice no later than January 1, 2008. The department may also provide further instructions through training notes. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3993, 5. Amended by Stats.1968, c. 1008, p. 1958, 1; Stats.1969, c. 1255, p. 2454, 1; Stats.1970, c. 444, p. 892, 1; Stats.1986, c. 415, 9, eff. July 17, 1986; Stats.2007, c. 502 (A.B.921), 2.) West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10960 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11340&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11340&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28I2C5366E078-FB11DC8088D-56C8EB60CC3%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1077005&DocName=UU%28I2C5366E078-FB11DC8088D-56C8EB60CC3%29&FindType=l HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2008 Electronic Update 2007 Legislation Stats.2007, c. 502 (A.B.921), rewrote this section, which had read: Within 30 days after receiving the proposed decision of an administrative law judge adopted by the director, a final decision rendered by an administrative law judge or a decision issued by the director himself or herself, the affected county or applicant or recipient may file a request with the director for a rehearing. The director shall immediately serve a copy of the request on the other party to the hearing and such other party may within five days of the service file with the director a written statement supporting or objecting to the request. The director shall grant or deny the request no earlier than the fifth nor later than the 15th working day after the receipt of the request. If the director grants the request, the rehearing shall be conducted in the same manner and subject to the same time limits as the original hearing. If action is not taken by the director within the time allowed, the re- quest shall be deemed denied. 2001 Main Volume As added in 1965, the section read: Within 30 days after adoption by the director of the proposed decision of a referee or the issuance by the direct- or of his own decision, the affected county or applicant or recipient may file a request with the director for a re- hearing and the director, within 10 days after receipt of the request, shall grant or deny the request. If the direct- or grants the request, the rehearing shall be conducted in the same manner and subject to the same time limits as the original hearing. The 1968 amendment revised the first part of the first sentence to read: Within 30 days after receiving the pro- posed decision of a referee adopted by the director or a decision issued by the director himself, and it added the last sentence. The 1969 amendment formed the first and third sentences from the former first sentence; added the second sen- tence; and required a ruling between 5 and 15 days instead of within 10 days. The 1970 amendment, in the third sentence in reference to the time limit, substituted working day for day. The 1986 amendment rewrote the first sentence, which had read: Within 30 days after receiving the proposed decision of a referee adopted by the director or a decision issued by the director himself, the affected county or applicant or recipient may file a request with the director for a rehearing. Derivation: Former 104.5, added by Stats.1939, c. 302, p. 1575, 3, amended by Stats.1945, c. 307, p. 766, 1; Stats.1945, c. 876, p. 1645, 1; Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 2; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1593, 4; Stats.1959, c. 1523, p. 3813, 1; Stats.1961, c. 97, p. 1103, 1. Former 445.10, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10960 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Judicial review, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10962. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Opportunity to document satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.5. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. Verification of satisfactory immigration status, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50301.6. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES California supreme court survey; a review of decisions: July 1982-November 1982. (1983) 10 Pepp.L.Rev. 835. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 64, Rehearing. NOTES OF DECISIONS Construction with other laws 1 Due process 2 Exhaustion of administrative remedies 3 Mandamus 4 1. Construction with other laws Term final administrative action as used in federal AFDC regulation requiring that such action be taken within 90 days from date of request for hearing on question of benefits does not include completion of rehearings au- thorized under state law. Westfall v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 750, 58 Cal.App.3d 109. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.16(1) Section 10950 et seq., as implemented by regulations, makes it mandatory that decision be rendered within 90 days of request for fair hearing and requires immediate implementation of the decision notwithstanding the fact that a local welfare agency may be granted a rehearing; granting of local welfare agency’s request for rehearing will not postpone payment of benefits to a qualified recipient so that California rehearing procedure permitting West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10960 Page 4 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50301.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440193 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102282 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 decision of rehearing to be made more than 90 days after original request for fair hearing does not conflict with federal regulation. Westfall v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 750, 58 Cal.App.3d 109. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.16(2) 2. Due process During time of pending administrative appeal by public assistance recipients from decision to terminate or re- duce existing grants of aid, due process called for continued livelihood, not continued eligibility. Webb v. Swoap (App. 3 Dist. 1974) 114 Cal.Rptr. 897, 40 Cal.App.3d 191. Constitutional Law 4116 3. Exhaustion of administrative remedies Implicit in statutory and regulatory requirements that county welfare agencies give advice to welfare applicants with respect to their right to submit written application for aid and of their right to administrative appeal from county agency to department of social welfare is recognition by both legislature and department of social wel- fare that welfare applicants cannot be expected to exhaust administrative remedies they do not know and are denied means of finding out about. Diaz v. Quitoriano (App. 3 Dist. 1969) 74 Cal.Rptr. 358, 268 Cal.App.2d 807. Social Security And Public Welfare 5 4. Mandamus Federal regulation requiring that final decision be rendered within 90 days of request for hearing concerning AF- DC benefits mandates prompt administrative action but does not foreclose late administrative action; remedy for violation is a petition for writ of mandate to compel timely action and not to terminate the administrative process altogether. Westfall v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 750, 58 Cal.App.3d 109. Mandamus 81; Social Security And Public Welfare 194.16(1) West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10960, CA WEL & INST 10960 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10960 Page 5 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102282 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103972 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103972 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969111646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102282 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k81 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10961. Director’s decision; contents; effect The decision of the director need not specify the amount of the award to be paid unless the amount of the award is an issue. If the decision is in favor of the applicant or recipient, the county department shall pay to the applic- ant or recipient, without the necessity of establishing his or her present need, the amount of aid the director finds he or she is entitled to receive pursuant to the director’s decision, payment to commence as of the date the person was first entitled thereto, or grant to him or her the services to which he or she is entitled. The award shall be determined no later than 30 days following the date that the hearing decision is received by the county, or 30 days from the date the additional information needed for compliance with the decision is provided to the county. After the award is made, the county and the claimant shall be notified by the department of its determination regarding the county’s compliance with the decision. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3993, 5. Amended by Stats.1986, c. 415, 9.5, eff. July 17, 1986.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1986 amendment, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, inserted gender neutral language, inserted the director finds following the amount of aid , and deleted the director finds following the services to which ; and added the second paragraph. Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1. Former 445.11, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10961 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10961%29&FindType=l Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. CROSS REFERENCES Basic health care, see Welfare and Institutions Code 14000 et seq. Indigents, county aid, see Welfare and Institutions Code 17000 et seq. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Scaling the welfare bureaucracy: Expanding concepts of governmental employee liability. (1973) 21 UCLA L.Rev. 624. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 65, Award; Compliance With Decision. NOTES OF DECISIONS County welfare departments 1 Delay in proceedings, generally 2 Supplemental security income recipients 4 Thirty-day time limit 3 Weight and sufficiency of evidence 5 1. County welfare departments Decision by state department of benefit payments is binding on county welfare department even if it is adminis- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10961 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS14000&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS17000&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440194 tratively appealed. People v. LaMotte (App. 1 Dist. 1979) 155 Cal.Rptr. 5, 92 Cal.App.3d 604. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.1 2. Delay in proceedings, generally The provisions of 2182 (repealed) for appeal to state social welfare board from determination of county board of supervisors of application for old age aid, and for payments, if awarded, to commence from date applicant was first entitled thereto, subserved a clear public purpose by securing to those entitled to aid the full payment thereof from date they were first entitled thereto, regardless of errors or delays by local authorities. Board of So- cial Welfare v. Los Angeles County (1945) 27 Cal.2d 81, 162 P.2d 630. Social Security And Public Welfare 178 3. Thirty-day time limit Decision of referee in respect to claim for aid to the needy disabled was not subject to treatment as a final de- cision in case by mere reason of fact that director of state department of social welfare did not act on decision within 30-day time limit of 10959. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 4. Supplemental security income recipients Named and unnamed members of class consisting of families applying for aid to families with dependent chil- dren where sole or only children also received supplemental security income were entitled to retroactive relief arising from determination that state was precluded from denying AFDC to such families. Zapata v. Woods (App. 2 Dist. 1982) 187 Cal.Rptr. 351, 137 Cal.App.3d 858, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 101, 464 U.S. 827, 78 L.Ed.2d 105. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 5. Weight and sufficiency of evidence Evidence before the director of the state department of benefit payments was insufficient to sustain finding that cash that applicant received from her parents for current needs was a gift; record supported a finding only that the cash was a loan for needs incurred after denial of claimant’s application for aid to families with dependent children. Burch v. Prod (App. 4 Dist. 1979) 153 Cal.Rptr. 751, 90 Cal.App.3d 987. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.20 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10961, CA WEL & INST 10961 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10961 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979111268 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1945112088 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1945112088 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak178 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak178 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982151769 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982151769 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1983234347 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1983234347 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.20 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10962. Judicial review The applicant or recipient or the affected county, within one year after receiving notice of the director’s final de- cision, may file a petition with the superior court, under the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a review of the entire proceedings in the matter, upon questions of law involved in the case. Such review, if granted, shall be the exclusive remedy available to the applicant or recipient or county for review of the director’s decision. The director shall be the sole respondent in such proceedings. Immediately upon being served the director shall serve a copy of the petition on the other party entitled to judicial review and such party shall have the right to intervene in the proceedings. No filing fee shall be required for the filing of a petition pursuant to this section. Any such petition to the superi- or court shall be entitled to a preference in setting a date for hearing on the petition. No bond shall be required in the case of any petition for review, nor in any appeal therefrom. The applicant or recipient shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, if he obtains a decision in his favor. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3993, 5. Amended by Stats.1968, c. 1008, p. 1958, 2; Stats.1969, c. 1255, p. 2454, 2.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume The 1968 amendment deleted After having exhausted the administrative remedy provided for in Section 10960, from the beginning of the section. The 1969 amendment added the last sentence of the first paragraph. Derivation: Former 104.2, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 2, amended by Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1892, 3. Former 104.3, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2455, 3, amended by Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1892, 3. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10962%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y Former 445.12, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 2182.1, added by Stats.1943, c. 358, p. 1589, 19. Former 3086.1, added by Stats.1945, c. 634, p. 1167, 1. Former 3473.1, added by Stats.1945, c. 770, p. 1454, 1. CROSS REFERENCES Cases arising under this section excluded from county’s right to seek injunction, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10605. Judicial review, see Government Code 11523. Writ of mandate to review administrative orders or decisions, see Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Administrative collateral estoppel in California: Critical evaluation of People v. Sims. Thomas F. Crosby, Jr., 40 Hastings L.J. 907 (1989). California supreme court survey; a review of decisions: July 1982-November 1982. (1983) 10 Pepp.L.Rev. 835. Special project: Annotated California Statutes of Limitation. 23 Sw.U.L.Rev. 689 (1994). The Supreme Court of California, 1981-1982. Foreword: The emerging court. Stephen R. Barnett, 71 Cal- if.L.Rev. 1134 (July, 1983). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.20. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 16. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 66, Judicial Review. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10605&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10605&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11523&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001159&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0103847337 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001244&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0104721204 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0101322236 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001107&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0101322236 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693386 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440195 CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 70, Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Treatises and Practice Aids Rutter, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs Ch. 14-B, B. Recovery of Appellate Costs and Attorney Fees. 9 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Administrative Proceedings 110, (S 110) Statutes of Limitations. 1 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Attorneys 182, (S 182) in General. 8 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Extraordinary Writs 264, Decision Applying Invalid Regulation. 7 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th Judgment 196, Welfare Determination. NOTES OF DECISIONS Administrative remedies, exhaustion of 5 Admissibility of evidence 10 Amount, attorney fees 17 Attorney fees 15-19 Attorney fees – In general 15 Attorney fees – Amount 17 Attorney fees – Discretion of court 16 Attorney fees – Forfeiture 18 Attorney fees – Publicly financed legal service organizations 19 Benefits, payment of 6 Construction with other laws 1 Discretion of court, attorney fees 16 Evidence, admissibility of 10 Evidence, weight and sufficiency of 11 Exclusive remedy 4 Exhaustion of administrative remedies 5 Forfeiture, attorney fees 18 Interest 14 Legislative intent 2 Medical care benefits 7 Parties 8 Payment of benefits 6 Publicly financed legal service organizations, attorney fees 19 Purpose 2 Record 12 Regulations, validity of regulations 3 Remedies, exclusivity 4 Review, scope of 13 Scope of review 13 Sufficiency of evidence 11 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 3 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0106155&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0110176536 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155585&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289847620 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155559&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289833763 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155581&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289845343 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0155575&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289842068 Trial de novo 9 Validity of regulations 3 Weight and sufficiency of evidence 11 1. Construction with other laws Petition, challenging both the results of the administrative hearings denying Medi-Cal recipients direct reim- bursement, for covered expenses paid while Medi-Cal application was pending and for copayments erroneously paid to provider, and the practice of the Department of Health Services of refusing to directly reimburse Medi- Cal recipients under circumstances in which DHS assertedly is required to do so, could be brought under statute providing for administrative mandamus or statute providing for ordinary mandamus. Conlan v. Bonta (App. 1 Dist. 2002) 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, 102 Cal.App.4th 745, modified on denial of rehearing. Mandamus 105 In determining whether petitioners were needy persons within provisions of 12000 et seq. (repealed), pro- cedure set forth in this code rather than that in Gov.C. 11501 et seq., was properly followed. Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept. of Cal. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 524, 289 P.2d 485. Social Security And Public Welfare 177 2. Purpose Purpose of this section is to insure access to judicial review rather than defining extent of recipient’s recovery and thus fact that legislature did not specifically mention interest, which relates to extent of recovery inasmuch as it constitutes element of damages, does not mean that a successful recipient is precluded from receiving award of interest. Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 17 Cal.3d 671, 552 P.2d 749. 3. Validity of regulations Unsuccessful applicant for welfare benefits may contest the validity of regulation which mandates the denial of his application both in the fair hearing provided pursuant to 10950 and in subsequent judicial review pursuant to a writ of administrative mandamus. Woods v. Superior Court of Butte County (1981) 170 Cal.Rptr. 484, 28 Cal.3d 668, 620 P.2d 1032. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5; Social Security And Public Welfare 8.20 4. Exclusive remedy Where act reviewed was adjudicatory in that aid to families with dependent children recipient exercised her right under 10950 to demand fair hearing of decision to reduce grant, and that hearing resulted in adverse de- cision, her exclusive remedy was to file action for writ of administrative mandate in superior court pursuant to C.C.P. 1094.5, and in both proceedings she was entitled to challenge validity of underlying regulation. Green v. Obledo (1981) 172 Cal.Rptr. 206, 29 Cal.3d 126, 624 P.2d 256. Mandamus 100 This section making judicial review under CCP 1094.5 of determinations of eligibility for welfare benefits exclusive remedy without specifically providing for interest refers only to manner in which aggrieved party may seek review of adverse determination and scope of review to which he is entitled, and thus, inasmuch as ag- grieved party must proceed by way of administrative mandamus, availability of interest as element of damages remains open. Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 17 Cal.3d 671, 552 P.2d 749. Social Security And Pub- lic Welfare 8.20 5. Exhaustion of administrative remedies West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 4 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2002616887 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2002616887 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k105 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS11501&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak177 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976133164 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981109695 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981109695 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k100 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976133164 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 Where plaintiffs in class action did not seek to secure payment of welfare benefits but sought declaratory and in- junctive relief and mandate in order to establish the illegality of grant adjustments and to prohibit continued re- sort to that method of recouping overpayments due to administrative error where the recipient has fully reported, which relief was not provided for by statute, doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not applic- able and was not a jurisdictional bar to the action. Oliva v. Swoap (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 130 Cal.Rptr. 411, 59 Cal.App.3d 130. Declaratory Judgment 204 Rule that party must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to seeking relief in courts has no application in situation where administrative remedy is not available or inadequate. Diaz v. Quitoriano (App. 3 Dist. 1969) 74 Cal.Rptr. 358, 268 Cal.App.2d 807. Administrative Law And Procedure 229 6. Payment of benefits Though immunity from repayment of grants paid to public assistance recipients pending unsuccessful adminis- trative appeals from decision to terminate or reduce existing grants permitted recipients to extend their time on assistance rolls through expedient of filing a meritless appeal, answers to problem were through a statutory ap- proach by legislature or through administrative and budgetary arrangements which minimized the time con- sumed by appeal process. Webb v. Swoap (App. 3 Dist. 1974) 114 Cal.Rptr. 897, 40 Cal.App.3d 191. Constitu- tional Law 2500; Constitutional Law 2563 7. Medical care benefits Medi-Cal regulations prescribing calculation to be used as prerequisite to state aid in determining share of cost of medical expenses to be paid by married Medi-Cal applicants in medically needy category was consistent with federal requirements and was valid, even though if wife, who continued to live in couple’s home after husband was placed in convalescent home for long-term medical care, were to obtain a dissolution she would presumably be awarded a substantially larger amount as her share of husband’s annuity than she was allowed under the regu- lation. Granneman v. Myers (App. 3 Dist. 1981) 171 Cal.Rptr. 583, 115 Cal.App.3d 846. Health 471(5) 8. Parties Welfare claimant, who was aggrieved by judgment of administrative mandamus proceeding, became a party of record to the administrative mandamus proceeding for purposes of appeal by filing a motion to vacate judgment. Alameda County v. Lackner (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 144 Cal.Rptr. 840, 79 Cal.App.3d 274. Mandamus 187.3 9. Trial de novo Applicant for social services who sought mandamus to enforce fair hearing decision was not required to prove eligibility de novo in the mandamus proceeding. Blackburn v. Sarsfield (App. 1 Dist. 1981) 178 Cal.Rptr. 15, 125 Cal.App.3d 143. Mandamus 168(2) Petitioners, who sought old age security benefits, were not possessed of a vested right, but of right to make ap- plication for such benefits provided they were able to comply with statutory prerequisites therefor, and, there- fore, were not entitled to trial de novo in superior court following denial of their petitions by the social welfare board. Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept. of Cal. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 524, 289 P.2d 485. Social Security And Public Welfare 176.1 10. Admissibility of evidence West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 5 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102357 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976102357 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=118Ak204 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969111646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969111646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak229 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103972 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2500 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2500 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2563 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981106092 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk471%285%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978101794 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k187.3 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k168%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak176.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak176.1 In mandamus proceeding in superior court by county to challenge authority of director of department of social welfare to hold a hearing at request of one whose aid for needy children had been terminated, and challenging decision of director, superior court did not err in refusing to permit county to introduce additional evidence be- cause certain portions of tape recording device used before referee were unintelligible, where inaudible portions were intelligible by resort to remarks preceding and following inaudible portions. Madera County v. Holcomb (App. 5 Dist. 1968) 66 Cal.Rptr. 428, 259 Cal.App.2d 226. Mandamus 173 11. Weight and sufficiency of evidence Since review of a referee’s proposed decision by director of state department of social welfare is limited to ques- tions of law, a trial court’s function in considering evidence is limited to determining whether director’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in light of whole record. Henderling v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1974) 111 Cal.Rptr. 612, 36 Cal.App.3d 561. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.15 In an administrative mandamus proceeding to review a decision of the director of department of social welfare denying welfare benefits, the trial court and the court of appeal apply the substantial evidence rule and look to the record to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to support the administrative findings and if the decision is in conformance with law. Madera County v. Carleson (App. 5 Dist. 1973) 108 Cal.Rptr. 515, 32 Cal.App.3d 764. Mandamus 168(4); Mandamus 187.9(6) In view of fact that court of appeal was not trier of fact with respect to administrative mandamus proceeding to review denial of application for welfare benefits on disability grounds, such court would not reweigh medical evidence adverse to applicant. Taylor v. Martin (App. 1 Dist. 1972) 105 Cal.Rptr. 211, 28 Cal.App.3d 1057. Mandamus 187.9(6) 12. Record Welfare department was not required at pretermination hearing to issue subpoenas and administer oaths so long as hearing after termination of benefits being received under categorical assistance programs would provide basis for full administrative review. McCullough v. Terzian (1970) 87 Cal.Rptr. 195, 2 Cal.3d 647, 470 P.2d 4. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5 13. Scope of review In reviewing decisions denying applications for public assistance such as Medi-Cal benefits, superior court exer- cises its independent judgment, i.e., it reconsiders evidence presented at administrative hearing and makes its own independent findings of fact. Ruth v. Kizer (App. 1 Dist. 1992) 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 274, 8 Cal.App.4th 380, re- hearing denied. Health 507 Independent judgment review was appropriate standard for trial court to review administrative decision denying benefits under the aid to the totally disabled program in light of significance of right of needy disabled to public assistance; overruling Tripp v. Swoap, 17 Cal.3d 671, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749; and Bertch v. Social Welfare Dept., 45 Cal.2d 524, 289 P.2d 485. (Per Broussard, J., with two Judges concurring, one Judge concur- ring in a separate opinion, and three Judges dissenting.) Frink v. Prod (1982) 181 Cal.Rptr. 893, 31 Cal.3d 166, 643 P.2d 476. Social Security And Public Welfare 181 The role of the trial court and of the appellate court in reviewing a decision of the social welfare department dir- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 6 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968111317 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k173 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103537 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k168%284%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k187.9%286%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972103393 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k187.9%286%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970131510 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1992132979 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=198Hk507 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976133164 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955113712 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982116053 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1982116053 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak181 ector begins and ends with a determination of whether substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, sup- ports the decision. Ferreira v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 133 Cal.Rptr. 449, 62 Cal.App.3d 875. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.20 Phrase in the light of the whole record, as found in provision of CCP 1094.5 incorporated in provision of this section authorizing an applicant or recipient or the affected county to file a petition with the superior court for a review of the entire proceedings in the matter within one year after receiving notice of a final decision of the social welfare department director, is analogous to the expression based upon the entire record and means that, in reviewing evidence, court must review entire record to determine whether decision of director is suppor- ted by substantial evidence. Ferreira v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 133 Cal.Rptr. 449, 62 Cal.App.3d 875. Social Security And Public Welfare 8.20 Where there was substantial evidence in record made before hearing officer to support the findings as basis for denying AFDC benefits, the review was limited to question of law whether under the facts found to be true the claimant was legally entitled to AFDC payments; such issue is to be determined solely by interpretation of stat- utes and departmental regulations, not in conflict with the statutes, issued at the state level. Madera County v. Carleson (App. 5 Dist. 1973) 108 Cal.Rptr. 515, 32 Cal.App.3d 764. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 In an administrative mandamus proceeding to review denial of welfare benefits, trial court applies substantial evidence rule, i.e., looks to evidence before administrative tribunal only to ascertain whether it includes evid- ence of substance to support the administrative finding. Taylor v. Martin (App. 1 Dist. 1972) 105 Cal.Rptr. 211, 28 Cal.App.3d 1057. Mandamus 168(4) Review by superior court and by district court of appeal of the decision of state board of social welfare relative to old age aid is confined to questions of law involved. Kelley v. State Bd. of Social Welfare (App. 2 Dist. 1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 627, 186 P.2d 429. Administrative Law And Procedure 784.1; Social Security And Public Welfare 178 14. Interest Claimant who was entitled to receive retroactive payments to aid to families with dependent children benefits which had been unlawfully withheld was entitled to prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney fees as well. Burch v. Prod (App. 4 Dist. 1979) 153 Cal.Rptr. 751, 90 Cal.App.3d 987. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 Applicant for aid to the needy disabled, successful on his petition for a writ of mandamus requiring social wel- fare department director to set aside an order and decision determining that applicant was ineligible for benefits, was entitled to prejudgment interest under authority of Civ.C. 3287 providing that every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as debtor is prevented by law, or by act of creditor from paying debt. Ferreira v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 133 Cal.Rptr. 449, 62 Cal.App.3d 875. Interest 39(2.20) Where recipient of welfare benefits is adjudged entitled to retroactive payment of benefits pursuant to statutory obligation of state, such recipient is entitled to award of prejudgment interest at legal rate from time each pay- ment becomes due; disapproving Luna v. Carleson, 119 Cal.Rptr. 711, 45 Cal.App.3d 670. Tripp v. Swoap West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 7 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123252 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000201&DocName=CACPS1094.5&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123252 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.20 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103537 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103537 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972103393 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972103393 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k168%284%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1911102958 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1911102958 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak784.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak178 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak178 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979101199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000200&DocName=CACIS3287&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123252 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123252 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=219k39%282.20%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104026 (1976) 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 17 Cal.3d 671, 552 P.2d 749. Interest 31; Social Security And Public Welfare 9.1 15. Attorney fees–In general Applicant for social services who obtained favorable decision and court enforcement was entitled to attorney fees incurred in the action brought to enforce the initial fair hearing decision. Blackburn v. Sarsfield (App. 1 Dist. 1981) 178 Cal.Rptr. 15, 125 Cal.App.3d 143. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Plaintiff, who sought writ of mandate reversing decision which terminated her welfare benefits under aid to needy disabled program and who prevailed in superior court and in court of appeal, while entitled to attorney fees in respect to those appellate proceedings which undertook to secure her right to welfare benefits under this section, was not entitled under this section, to attorney fees incurred in connection with supreme court review which was sought to obtain more favorable legal precedent. Le Blanc v. Swoap (1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 304, 16 Cal.3d 741, 548 P.2d 704. Mandamus 190 Trial court is most appropriate forum for determination of award of attorney fees. Le Blanc v. Swoap (1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 304, 16 Cal.3d 741, 548 P.2d 704. Costs 197 Award of attorneys’ fees in favor of those who were found eligible to receive retroactive benefits in form of aid to families with dependent children by reason of an invalid regulation of the department of social welfare was not improper by reason of fact that it also favored others who were similarly entitled to benefits but who had not followed same administrative course. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 Welfare recipient who successfully intervenes in judicial proceedings brought by county to review decision of director of department of social welfare may be said to have obtained a decision in his favor, and if the recipi- ent’s interests were safe-guarded through the assistance of counsel, award of reasonable attorney fee is required. Humboldt County v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 124 Cal.Rptr. 510, 51 Cal.App.3d 442. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Attorney’s fees in public assistance cases are provided in order to enable needy person to establish through judi- cial proceedings his or her right to statutory benefits. Silberman v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1975) 123 Cal.Rptr. 456, 50 Cal.App.3d 568. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Where claimant for public assistance obtained writ of mandate to compel director of state department of social welfare to issue his decision after administrative fair hearing on claim, award of attorney’s fees was not improp- er. Silberman v. Swoap (App. 4 Dist. 1975) 123 Cal.Rptr. 456, 50 Cal.App.3d 568. Mandamus 190 While award of attorney fees in welfare cases is in nature of costs, which are allowable only to extent to which they are reasonably incurred, such attorney fees are to permit claimant to establish his right to statutory benefit that by its character is obtainable only by needy person whose financial condition does not leave margin for such occasional necessities as attorney fees. Trout v. Carleson (App. 4 Dist. 1974) 112 Cal.Rptr. 282, 37 Cal.App.3d 337. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 AFDC mother who sought individual relief against administrative decision was not entitled to statutory attorney fees where she did not obtain favorable decision, regardless of whether her class action allegations took cause of West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 8 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976133164 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=219k31 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976113714 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976113714 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976113714 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976113714 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=102k197 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104575 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104461 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104461 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104461 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103698 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103698 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 action outside scope of this section permitting award of attorney fees. Russell v. Carleson (App. 3 Dist. 1973) 111 Cal.Rptr. 497, 36 Cal.App.3d 334. Costs 194.25 16. —- Discretion of court, attorney fees Attorneys’ fees may be awarded to publicly financed legal service organizations pursuant to provisions of this section and amount thereof rests within trial court’s traditionally broad discretion in fixing such fees when they are properly awarded. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Award of $975 as attorney’s fees to recipient challenging welfare regulations was not an abuse of discretion. Horn v. Swoap (App. 2 Dist. 1974) 116 Cal.Rptr. 113, 41 Cal.App.3d 375. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 17. —- Amount, attorney fees Awards of $26,186 and $14,995 to attorneys representing applicants for AFDC foster care payments were not excessive, where amounts were substantiated by the evidence; spending a total of approximately 200 hours on two petitions was not excessive given novelty of issues presented and need for exhaustion of administrative rem- edies. Land v. Anderson (App. 2 Dist. 1997) 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 717, 55 Cal.App.4th 69, review denied , certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 692, 522 U.S. 1048, 139 L.Ed.2d 637. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 Awards of attorneys’ fees to publicly financed legal service organizations were not subject to challenge that they were made at rates which reflected value of services rendered by private attorneys where trial court determined that rates at which it calculated amounts awarded was within lower range of prevailing compensation awarded by courts in geographical area for similar services. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Costs 194.18 Reasonable value of services rendered by publicly financed legal service agencies on appeal in suit brought pur- suant to this section was to be fixed and awarded by trial court when it determined costs on appeal. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 In determining value of legal services rendered to welfare recipient who intervenes in proceeding challenging decision of director of department of social welfare, courts should insure that a recipient’s legal representative is not compensated for making a merely nominal appearance or by duplicating the efforts of the Attorney General in representing the director. Humboldt County v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 124 Cal.Rptr. 510, 51 Cal.App.3d 442. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Attorney fees in amount of $350, awarded to plaintiff who has obtained ruling ordering payment to her of with- held aid to dependent children payments, were not excessive. Luna v. Carleson (App. 3 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 711, 45 Cal.App.3d 670. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 18. —- Forfeiture, attorney fees An individual who is entitled to attorneys’ fees under provisions of this section may not be held to have forfeited such fees because he had successfully represented a class as well an his own interests. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 9 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103871 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973103871 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=102k194.25 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974104098 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0003484&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997113084 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1997223112 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=102k194.18 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104575 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104575 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104026 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104026 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 19. —- Publicly financed legal service organizations, attorney fees Petitioner, successful on his petition for a writ of mandamus requiring social welfare department director to set aside an order and decision determining that petitioner was ineligible for aid to the needy disabled, was entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in trial court and on appeal, but to extent that he was represented during a portion of proceedings by an attorney who was a salaried employee of a corporation that furnished his services without cost, petitioner was required to donate a proportionate amount of award received to a neighborhood leg- al assistance foundation. Ferreira v. Swoap (App. 1 Dist. 1976) 133 Cal.Rptr. 449, 62 Cal.App.3d 875. Manda- mus 190 Fees awarded for legal services pursuant to provisions of this section are not somehow abridged when they are to be awarded a publicly financed legal service organization. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 A publicly financed legal service organization is not required to show a hypothetical cost accounting to court when making a request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to provisions of this section. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Awards of attorneys’ fees to publicly financed legal service organizations were not subject to challenge on ground that organizations failed to submit a correct cost accounting to court in order to insure that they would not realize a profit where trial court determined that amount awarded each organization did not represent a net profit in excess of actual cost of services. Hypolite v. Carleson (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 125 Cal.Rptr. 221, 52 Cal.App.3d 566. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 Attorney fees were properly awarded to plaintiff by trial court which had ordered payment of aid for dependent children payments previously withheld, although plaintiff had been represented without charge by county legal aid society. Luna v. Carleson (App. 3 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 711, 45 Cal.App.3d 670. Social Security And Public Welfare 194.21 Attorney’s fees may be awarded to recipient challenging welfare regulations even though recipient may be rep- resented by a legal services organization. Horn v. Swoap (App. 2 Dist. 1974) 116 Cal.Rptr. 113, 41 Cal.App.3d 375. Social Security And Public Welfare 12 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10962, CA WEL & INST 10962 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10962 Page 10 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976123252 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k190 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104652 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104026 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.21 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974104098 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974104098 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak12 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10963. Compliance with decision The county director shall comply with and execute every decision of the director rendered pursuant to this chapter. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3994, 5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume An amendment of this section by 5 of Stats.1999, c. 803, failed to become operative under the provisions of 11 of that Act. Section 11 of Stats.1999, c. 803 (A.B.472), provides: Sections 1 and 2 of this bill shall become operative only if either Assembly Bill 196 [Stats.1999, c. 478] or Senate Bill 542 [Stats.1999, c. 480], or both, are enacted into law during the 1999-2000 Regular Session, and as enacted, either or both bills add Division 17 (commencing with Section 17000) to the Family Code, in which case Sections 3, 4, 5, [amending Welfare and Institutions Code 10950, 10951, and 10963] and 6 [The bill did not contain a Section 6] of this bill shall not become operative. Derivation: Former 104.6, added by Stats.1945, c. 1319, p. 2474, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3242, 3; Stats.1961, c. 1227, p. 2974, 6. Former 445.12, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Cases arising under this section excluded from county’s right to seek injunction, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10605. County director, duties of, see Welfare and Institutions Code 10803. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10963 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10963%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10950&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10951&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10605&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10605&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10803&FindType=L CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Medical assistance program, county department responsibilities, see 22 Cal. Code of Regs. 50101. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 65, Award; Compliance With Decision. NOTES OF DECISIONS Mandamus 1 1. Mandamus This section, providing that county director shall comply with and execute every decision of the director of the state agency is mandatory and applies to initial fair hearing decisions pending rehearing; traditional mandamus is the remedy by which compliance may be compelled. Blackburn v. Sarsfield (App. 1 Dist. 1981) 178 Cal.Rptr. 15, 125 Cal.App.3d 143. Mandamus 100; Social Security And Public Welfare 8.5 West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10963, CA WEL & INST 10963 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10963 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=22CAADCS50101&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440194 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0000227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981145971 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k100 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10964. Digest of decisions The department shall compile and distribute to each county department a current digest of decisions, properly in- dexed, rendered under this chapter, and each such digest shall be open to public inspection, subject, however, to the confidentiality requirements set forth in federal and state laws and regulations. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3994, 5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume Derivation: Former 445.14, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. CROSS REFERENCES Availability of copies of laws, bulletins and regulations for public inspection, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 10608. Confidential records, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 10850. Informational pamphlets, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 10607. Inspection of public records, seeGovernment Code 6250 et seq. Pregnancy tests to Pupil records , exemptions from disclosure, seeGovernment Code 6276.36. Publication and distribution of regulations, seeWelfare and Institutions Code 10606. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. Fair hearing defined, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, fair hearing, see9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10964 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10964%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10608&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10608&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10850&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10607&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS6250&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000211&DocName=CAGTS6276.36&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10606&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.1. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 12. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10964, CA WEL & INST 10964 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10964 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693382 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10965. Request on behalf of decedent’s estate Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the filing of the request for a hearing by the legal representative, or, if there is no authorized legal representative, by an heir of a deceased applicant or recipient, in behalf of the decedent’s estate, to the end that rights not determined at the time of death shall accrue to the estate of the applicant or re- cipient. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1784, p. 3994, 5.) HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES 2001 Main Volume Derivation: Former 104.1, added by Stats.1951, c. 925, p. 2454, 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 1562, p. 3241, 1; Stats.1957, c. 702, p. 1891, 1. Former 445.15, added by Stats.1963, c. 1916, p. 3930, 54.5. Former 1511, added by Stats.1937, c. 374, p. 1185, 1. Former 1551, added by Stats.1937, c. 389, p. 1204, amended by Stats.1939, c. 1037, p. 2845, 10; Stats.1945, c. 1395, p. 2601, 10. Former 3086, added by Stats.1937, c. 376, p. 1186, amended by Stats.1937, c. 406, p. 1351; Stats.1939, c. 916, p. 2571, 10. Stats.1929, c. 529, p. 911, 5; Stats.1931, c. 882, p. 1894, 1; Stats.1936, Ex.Sess., c. 6, p. 9, 3; Stats.1937, c. 84, p. 180, 1. CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, Expedited fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.4. West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10965 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10965%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.4&FindType=Y Fair hearing defined, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.6. Specialty mental health services, Fair Hearing, see 9 Cal. Code of Regs. 1810.216.1. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.1. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 12. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 61, Filing of Request; Priority, Setting and Notice of Hearing. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10965, CA WEL & INST 10965 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10965 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.6&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000937&DocName=9CAADCS1810.216.1&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693382 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440190 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10966. Delegation of director’s powers; decisions by administrative law judges (a) In addition to any other delegation powers granted to the director under law, the director may delegate his or her powers to adopt final decisions under this chapter to all administrative law judges within specified ranges in the department, in the types of cases deemed appropriate by the director. The authority to adopt final decisions shall not be contingent upon the outcome of the judge’s resolution of the case or issue, nor upon the identity of a particular administrative law judge. The defined areas of delegation shall be published by the department after interested groups such as the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, legal aid societies, and the County Welfare Directors Association have had a reasonable amount of time to review and comment. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, decisions rendered by the administrative law judges under the authority of this section shall be treated, for all purposes, as the decision of the director. The affected county, recipient, or applicant has the right to request a rehearing pursuant to Section 10960, and the right to pe- tition for judicial review pursuant to Section 10962. (c) If the director chooses to exercise the authority to delegate his or her powers to adopt final decisions to ad- ministrative law judges, the delegation shall be in writing. Any such delegation instrument shall be a public re- cord available at all times, including the time of hearing, from each administrative law judge to whom that au- thority has been delegated. The written delegation instrument shall include paragraphs (1) and (2) of the follow- ing, and may include paragraph (3) of the following: (1) It shall specify the administrative law judges that are authorized to render final decisions on his or her be- half, including the effective date of the authorization. (2) It shall specify the types of cases or issues that are subject to his or her delegation of final authority. (3) It may include any other implementation instructions which he or she determines are necessary for the effect- ive implementation of this section. (d) Decisions rendered by administrative law judges pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be fair, im- West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10966 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10966%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=Y partial, independent, in writing, and in the format prescribed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1986, c. 415, 10, eff. July 17, 1986.) LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.15. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 14 to 15. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10966, CA WEL & INST 10966 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10966 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693384 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693385 Effective:[See Text Amendments] West’s Annotated California Codes Currentness Welfare and Institutions Code (Refs & Annos) Division 9. Public Social Services (Refs & Annos) Part 2. Administration (Refs & Annos) Chapter 7. Hearings (Refs & Annos) 10967. Adequacy of notice At the time of the hearing the recipient has a right to raise the adequacy of the county’s notice of action as an is- sue. If the administrative law judge determines that adequate notice was provided, the recipient shall agree to discuss the substantive issue or issues or the case shall be dismissed. If the administrative law judge determines that adequate notice was not provided, the case will be postponed unless the recipient waives the adequate notice requirement and agrees to discuss the substantive issue or issues at the hearing. If the notice was not adequate and involved termination or reduction of aid, retroactive action shall be taken by the county to reinstate aid pending. CREDIT(S) (Added by Stats.1986, c. 415, 10.5, eff. July 17, 1986.) CROSS REFERENCES Due process, generally, see Const. Art. 1, 7. LIBRARY REFERENCES 2001 Main Volume Social Security and Public Welfare 8.5. Westlaw Topic No. 356A. C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare 13. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias CA Jur. 3d Public Aid and Welfare 62, Issues at Hearing; Continuance; Manner of Reporting Proceedings. West’s Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 10967, CA WEL & INST 10967 Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 763 of 2008 Reg.Sess. and Ch. 7 of 2007-2008 Third Ex.Sess., Prop. 99, and Props. 1A-12 West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10967 Page 1 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=lk%28CASTERR%29+lk%28CAWID9R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2R%29+lk%28CAWID9PT2C7R%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CA-ST-ANN+++++++&DocName=LK%28CAWIS10967%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000203&DocName=CACNART1S7&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0158105&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0289693383 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0294440191 (C) 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West END OF DOCUMENT West’s Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code 10967 Page 2 \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ”

” STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW STATE HEARING – GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 22-000 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Section Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-001 Determination of Time………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-002 Right to State Hearing……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-003 Request for State Hearing ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-004 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95……………………………………………….. 22-005 Time Limit on Request for a State Hearing ………………………………………………………………………….. 22-009 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-010 Renumbered by Manual letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95……………………………………………. 22-015 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-017 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-021 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-022 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-023 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-024 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-025 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-026 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-027 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95 ………………………………………….. 22-028 Repealed by SDSS Manual Letter No. CFC-87-05 ……………………………………………………………….. 22-040 Acknowledgement of Request for a State Hearing ………………………………………………………………… 22-043 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 87 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW STATE HEARING – GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 22-000 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Section Setting the Hearing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-045 Group Hearings………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-047 The Hearing – General Rules and Procedures ……………………………………………………………………….. 22-049 Evidence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-050 The Examination of Records and Issuance of Subpoenas ………………………………………………………. 22-051 Witness Fees and Mileage………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-052 Postponements and Continuances for Additional Evidence ……………………………………………………. 22-053 Dismissals ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-054 Disqualification of an Administrative Law Judge …………………………………………………………………. 22-055 Claimant Living Outside of California\/Institutionalized Claimants …………………………………………. 22-056 Communications After Hearing ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-059 Disposition of State Hearings …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-060 Submission of Proposed Decision\/Adoption of Final Decision……………………………………………….. 22-061 Action by the Director ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-062 Notice of Decision ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-063 Availability of State Hearing Records …………………………………………………………………………………. 22-064 Rehearing ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-065 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 88 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW STATE HEARING – GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 22-000 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Section County Welfare Responsibility…………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-069 Explanation of Right to State Hearing …………………………………………………………………………………. 22-070 Adequate Notice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-071 Timely Notice – Aid Pending Hearing …………………………………………………………………………………. 22-072 County Welfare Agency Responsibility Prior to the State Hearing………………………………………….. 22-073 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07……………………………………………….. 22-074 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07……………………………………………….. 22-075 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07……………………………………………….. 22-076 Hearing Not Held in County Responsible for Aid…………………………………………………………………. 22-077 Compliance with State Hearing Decisions……………………………………………………………………………. 22-078 Authorized Representative…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-085 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-000 DIVISION 22 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW CHAPTER 22-000 STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-000 STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-000 .1 The responsibility for providing a full and impartial hearing to the claimant rests jointly with the county and the state department. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .11 The state department is responsible for the overall administration of the hearing process and the conduct of each hearing. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .12 Since the right to request a state hearing belongs to the claimant, the regulations in this chapter shall be interpreted in a manner which protects the claimant’s right to a hearing. .13 Although the specific duties and responsibilities of each agency are set forth in the following regulations, these rules shall not be used to suppress the claimant’s right to a hearing. For example, although the county shall justify its action when appropriate, the county shall not discourage the claimant from proceeding with the hearing request nor relinquish its responsibility to assist the claimant in this process. The Administrative Law Judge shall conduct the hearing according to applicable procedures and the claimant shall be allowed to present evidence relevant to his\/her own case. .14 The regulations in this chapter shall apply to all public social services programs subject to a state hearing. .15 Any part of these regulations which apply only to specific aid programs shall be so designated. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10051, 10553, 10554 and 10950, Welfare and Institutions Code and 45 CFR 205.10. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 90 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-001 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-001 DEFINITIONS 22-001 The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used throughout Division 22. (a) (1) Adequate Notice – A written notice informing the claimant of the action the county intends to take, the reasons for the intended action, the specific regulations supporting such action, an explanation of the claimant’s right to request a state hearing, and if appropriate, the circumstances under which aid will be continued if a hearing is requested, and for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Program, if the county action is upheld, that the aid paid pending must be repaid. In the Food Stamp Program, see Section 63-504.2. (2) Administrative Law Judge – A person designated by the Director and thereafter assigned by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct state hearings and administrative disqualification hearings. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE The Administrative Law Judge shall prepare fair, impartial and independent decisions. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE (3) Aid – For purposes of this Division \”aid\” includes all public social services programs subject to a state hearing. (A) Such public social services programs include, but are not limited to, CalWORKs, the State administered programs for recipients of SSI\/SSP (Division 46), Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP), the Cuban\/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP), the Food Stamp Program (FS), the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal), Stage One Child Care, California Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), Personal Care Services Program (PCSP), Kinship Guardian Assistance Program (Kin-GAP), AFDC- Foster Care, California Food Assistance Program (CFAP), the Social Services Programs described in Divisions 30 and 31 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP), Aid for the Adoption of Children Program (AAC), Adoption Assistance Program (AAP), and Multipurpose Senior Services Program (MSSP). (4) Alternate Decision – A decision issued by the Director which differs from the Administrative Law Judge’s proposed decision. See Section 22-062. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 91 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-001 (Cont.) 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (5) Attorney – an active member of the California State Bar. (6) Authorized Representative – An individual or organization that has been authorized by the claimant or designated by the Administrative Law Judge or Department pursuant to Sections 22- 085 and 22-101 to act for the claimant in any and all aspects of the state hearing or administrative disqualification hearing. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (A) An authorized representative may include an attorney, a relative, a friend, or other spokesperson. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE (B) Any references to claimant shall also apply to the authorized representative unless otherwise stated. (C) Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07. (b) Reserved (c) (1) Chief Administrative Law Judge – The person designated and employed by, and directly responsible to the Director of the California Department of Social Services and charged with the administration of state hearings and administrative disqualification hearings. (2) Claimant – The person who has requested a state hearing and is or has been any of the following: (A) An applicant for or recipient of aid, as defined in Section 22-001a.(3). (B) A foster parent or foster care provider who requests a hearing on behalf of the foster child where the CWD takes action to affect the child’s aid and the child resides with or has resided with the foster parent or foster care provider. 1. There is no right to a state hearing concerning the placement or removal of a foster child. For grievance procedures applicable to the placement or removal of a foster child, see Section 31-020. 2. There is no right to a hearing concerning group home rates established by the state. For administrative review procedures concerning group home rates established by the state, see Section 11-430 et seq. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 92 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-001 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (C) A representative of the estate of a deceased applicant or recipient (see Sections 22-004.4 and .5). (D) The relative caring for a child with regard to the child’s application for or receipt of aid. (E) The guardian or conservator of an applicant or recipient. (F) The sponsor of an alien, see MPP Sections 43-119, 44-353, and 63-804.1. (G) Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07. (3) Compliance issue – An allegation by the claimant that the county has failed to abide by a state hearing decision concerning issues clearly resolved in the order where the county did not have to make further determinations regarding the claimant’s eligibility or amount of benefits. (4) Compliance related issues – Issues which were not resolved in the prior state hearing decision or resulted from the prior hearing decision requiring the county to make further determinations regarding the claimant’s eligibility or amount of benefits. (5) County or CWD – For purposes of this division, \”county\” or \”CWD\” generally refers to the county welfare department. The term \”county welfare department\” is used in Sections 22- 001c.(7), 22-003 and 22-073 to mean the welfare department in the county in which the recipient resides or the county that has taken the action or inaction with which the recipient is dissatisfied. Any references to \”county\” or \”CWD\” may also refer to any state department or contractor whose actions may be subject to a state hearing. For purposes of Sections 22-053.165, 22- 073.13, 22-073.252, .253, and .254, \”county\” or \”CWD\” shall not include the California Department of Health Services. (6) County Action – All actions which require adequate notice (see Section 22-071) and any other county action or inaction relating to the claimant’s application for or receipt of aid. (7) County or CWD Representative – An employee who is assigned the major responsibility for preparing and\/or presenting a hearing case on behalf of the CWD. (See Section 22-073.13.) (d) (1) Days – Days shall refer to calendar days unless otherwise specified. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 93 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-001 (Cont.) 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (2) Decision of the Director – The decision issued by the Director which resolves a state hearing case and is one of the following: (A) A final decision issued by an ALJ that is not subject to review before issuance; (B) A proposed decision by an ALJ which has been adopted as final by the Director; or (C) An alternate decision of the Director that overrules an ALJ’s proposed decision and has been adopted as final. (3) Department – The California Department of Social Services or the California Department of Health Services, whichever is appropriate. (4) Director – Refers to the Director of the California Department of Social Services or the Director of the California Department of Health Services, whichever is appropriate. (e) Reserved (f) (1) Filing Date (A) All written requests for hearings shall be date stamped by the State Hearings Division or the CWD on the day the request is \”received\”. Unless the evidence indicates otherwise, the filing date of the claimant’s written request for a state hearing shall be determined as follows: 1. If the request is mailed to the State Hearings Division, or to the CWD, the postmark date of the envelope. 2. If the request is delivered by hand to the State Hearings Division or to the CWD, the date stamped on the request for hearing. 3. If the date cannot be determined by the methods described above, three days before the request was stamped \”received\” by the State Hearings Division or the CWD. 4. If the date cannot be determined by Sections 22-001f.(1)(A)1., 2., or 3., the date the request was signed. (B) The filing date of an oral request shall be the date the request is received by the Department. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 94 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-001 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (C) If a written request is filed erroneously with the State Hearings Division or with a CWD in a county in which the claimant does not reside and in which the CWD has not taken any action or inaction with which the claimant is dissatisfied, the filing date shall be determined in the same manner as set forth above in Subsection (A). (2) Final Decision – The decision prepared and adopted by the Administrative Law Judge resolving a state hearing case and which is not subject to review prior to issuance. (g) Reserved (h) (1) Holiday – A Saturday, Sunday, and the holidays as specified in Government Code Sections 6700 et seq. which result in a postal holiday or the closing of Department or county offices. (i) Reserved (j) Reserved (k) Reserved (l) (1) Language-Compliant Notice – A notice of action that meets the applicable reuirement in (a) or (b) below: (a) For notices of action provided by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in the claimant’s primary language: A written notice of action that complies with the requirements of Section 21-115.2 for a claimant who chose to receive written communications offered in his\/her primary language pursuant to Section 21-116.21. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a claimant chose to receive written communications offered in the claimant’s primary language if the claimant identified a primary language other than English to the county pursuant to Section 21-201.211. (b) For CDSS notices of action that CDSS does not provide in the claimant’s primary language: The county must offer and provide interpretive services for the notice of action if either of the following applies: (1) The claimant contacts the county about that notice of action prior to the deadline for a timely request for hearing on an adequate notice of action and indicates a need for interpretive services; or CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 95 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-001 (Cont.) 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (2) The claimant previously identified a primary language other than English to the county and contacts the county about that notice of action prior to the deadline for a timely request for hearing on an adequate notice of action. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE Section 21-115.2 provides as follows: Forms and other written material required for the provision of aid or services shall be available and offered to the applicant\/recipient in the individual’s primary language when such forms and other written material are provided by CDSS. When such forms and other written material contain spaces (other than for agency use only ) in which the CWD is to insert information, this inserted information shall also be in the individual’s primary language. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE (m) Reserved (n) Reserved (o) Reserved (p) (1) Precedent Decision – A decision or part of a decision that is designated and indexed as such by the Director, pursuant to the California Administrative Procedure Act, because it contains a significant legal or policy determination of general application that is likely to recur. (2) Proposed Decision – The decision prepared by the Administrative Law Judge concerning a state hearing case which he\/she recommends to the Director for adoption. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (A) A proposed decision has no effect unless it has been adopted by the Director or adopted by operation of law. (See Section 22-062, Action by the Director.) HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 96 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-001 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-001 DEFINITIONS (Continued) 22-001 (q) Reserved (r) Reserved (s) (1) State Hearing – A form of administrative hearing mandated by federal and state law whereby a dissatisfied claimant may obtain an impartial review of a county action. (t) (1) Timely Notice – A written notice that is mailed to the person affected at least 10 days before the effective date of the action. See Section 22-072.4 for computation of the 10-day period. (u) Reserved (v) Reserved (w) Reserved (x) Reserved (y) Reserved (z) Reserved NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554 and 10604, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10051, 10613, 10950, 10963, 11209, 11323.6, and 11323.8, Welfare and Institutions Code; Sections 6700, 6701, 11425.10, and 11425.60, Government Code; 45 CFR 205.10; 45 CFR 205.10(a)(4)(i)(B); and 45 CFR 255.4(j)(1) and Part 256. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 96.1 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-003 (Cont.) 22-002 DETERMINATION OF TIME LIMITS 22-002 .1 If the last day for the performance of any act required by these regulations is a holiday, then such period shall be extended to the next day which is not a holiday. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-003 RIGHT TO A STATE HEARING 22-003 .1 A state hearing shall be available to a claimant who is dissatisfied with a county action and requests a hearing in the manner set forth below. .11 There is no right to a state hearing regarding a Food Stamp or CalWORKs administrative disqualification, unless the issue is the CWD’s method of implementing a Food Stamp or CalWORKs administrative disqualification hearing decision. (See Division 22, Chapters 22-200 and 22-300, Division 20, Chapter 20-300, and Division 63, Section 63-805.) .12 Notwithstanding any other regulation, there is no right to a state hearing when either state or federal law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients, unless the reason for the request for the state hearing is incorrect grant computation. .121 In the event of such automatic grant adjustment, the State Hearings Division shall promptly review the requests for a state hearing to determine whether the basis for a request is the automatic grant adjustment. See Section 22-054. .122 In the CalWORKs Program, all those who request a hearing when the change is because either state or federal law required an automatic grant adjustment shall be treated as though the subject of the hearing was not a law change until the time of the hearing. (a) If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the subject of the hearing was the wisdom or validity of such a law change, the request shall be permitted to be dismissed pursuant to Section 22-054.31. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 97 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-003 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-003 RIGHT TO STATE HEARING (Continued) 22-003 .13 Complaints as to discourteous treatment by a county employee shall not be subject to the state hearing process. .14 There is no right to a state hearing regarding child custody and child welfare service issues while that child is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. All issues regarding the child’s custody shall be heard by the juvenile court, including but not limited to those issues left to the discretion of the welfare department or probation department by the juvenile court. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10604, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10613, 10950, and 11209, Welfare and Institutions Code; 45 CFR 205.10; 45 CFR 235.112(c)(2); 45 CFR 255.4(j)(1) and 256.4(b); and Madrid v. McMahon (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3rd 151, In Re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal App. 3rd 752 and In Re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1366. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 98 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 20-004 (Cont.) 22-004 REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING 22-004 .1 A request for a state hearing may be either written or oral. .2 A written request concerning county administered state aid programs shall be filed with the CWD, and for all other state aid programs, the request shall be filed with the California State Department of Social Services in Sacramento. .21 A written request for hearing may be made in any form, including, but not limited to, the reverse side of the Notice of Action. .211 The county agency shall assist the claimant in filing a request for a state hearing. The request for a state hearing should identify the aid program involved, as well as, the reason for dissatisfaction with the particular action or inaction involved in the case. If an interpreter will be necessary, the claimant should so indicate on the hearing request. .22 When a written request for a state hearing is received by the CWD, a copy of the written request shall be forwarded to the State Hearings Division in Sacramento within three working days after receipt unless the CWD is given authority by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to directly enter the hearing request into the state hearing computer system online. The county shall retain the original hearing request and shall provide it to the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 99 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-004 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-004 REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING (Continued) 22-004 .221 If the request for hearing concerns an action which is subject to the adequate notice provisions, a copy of the applicable Notice of Action, if available, shall be sent with the request. .3 An oral request shall be filed in person or by telephone at the California Department of Social Services in Sacramento. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .31 A toll-free number is available for this purpose. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .4 If a claimant dies after a request for a state hearing has been filed, yet before a hearing has been held, the proceeding may only be continued by, or on behalf of, the representative of the claimant’s estate. .41 The representative of a decedent’s estate is the executor\/executrix or administrator\/administratrix of the estate. If the decendent’s estate is not in probate, the representative may also be an heir (e.g., parents, spouse, children, siblings, grandparents or grandchildren of the decedent). .5 If the prospective claimant dies before filing a request for a state hearing, a request may only be filed by those individuals specified in Section 22-004.41. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10965, Welfare and Institutions Code; and Section 44, Probate Code. 22-005 REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-005 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 100 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-009 (Cont.) 22-009 TIME LIMIT ON REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING 22-009 .1 The request for a state hearing shall be filed within 90 days after the date of the action or inaction with which the claimant is dissatisfied. .11 If the claimant received an adequate and language-compliant notice of the county action, the request for hearing shall be filed within 90 days after the notice was mailed or given to the claimant. If adequate notice was required but a notice was not provided, or if the notice is not adequate and\/or language-compliant, any hearing request (including an otherwise untimely hearing request) shall be deemed to be a timely hearing request. .12 In the Food Stamp Program, the time limits for state hearing requests are set forth in Sections 63- 802.4 and 63-804.5. .2 A recipient shall have the right to request a state hearing to review the current amount of aid. At the claimant’s request, such review shall extend back as many as 90 days from the date the request for hearing is filed and shall include review of any benefits issued during the entire first month in the 90- day period. This review shall only apply to facts that occurred during the review period. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .21 Example #1: The county issues the claimant adequate and language-compliant notice on January 20, 2005 advising him\/her that the Medi-Cal share of cost is increased from $100 to $200 effective February 1, 2005. The claimant receives this notice but does not request a hearing until July 6, 2005. Although the claimant’s hearing request is filed more than 90 days after the January 20, 2005 notice was issued, the claimant has the right to a state hearing to review the share of cost for the current month (i.e., July 2005) and the review will extend back 90 days to include all of April, May and June 2005. There can be no review of the February or March 2005 share of cost because the hearing request is untimely as to those months. The review will be based only on the relevant facts that occurred during April, May, June, and July, 2005, including the claimant’s income and deductions for those months as relevant to the share of cost. The review will not include facts that occurred prior to the review period. .22 Example #2: The county issues an adequate and language-complaint notice of action on March 15, 2005. The notice advises the recipient of a first instance sanction in the CalWORKs program effective May 1 for failure to participate in welfare-to-work. A first instance sanction lasts until the recipient complies with welfare-to-work requirements or becomes exempt from participation. The recipient receives the notice of action but does not request a hearing until October 25, 2005. HANDBOOK CONTINUES CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 101 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-009 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-009 TIME LIMIT ON REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING 22-009 (Continued) HANDBOOK CONTINUES The recipient’s hearing request is untimely under Section 22-009.1, but the recipient is entitled to a hearing on the current amount of aid under Section 22-009.2, limited to the facts that occurred during July, August, September and October, 2005. The ALJ will not review whether the sanction action was correct, nor the recipient’s sanction from April though June. The recipient will be entitled to have the CalWORKs grant reviewed for July, August, September and October, as appropriate, and may be added back to the assistance unit (AU) effective in those months if facts establish that the recipient was exempt or welfare-to-work compliant during those months. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10950 and 10951, Welfare and Institutions Code and Morales v. McMahon (1990) 223 Cal App. 3rd 184, 272 Cal. Rptr. 688. 22-010 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 22-010 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 101.1 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-024 22-015 COUNTY WELFARE RESPONSIBILITY 22-015 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-017 EXPLANATION OF RIGHT TO STATE HEARING 22-017 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-021 ADEQUATE NOTICE 22-021 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-022 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-022 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-023 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO 22-023 THE STATE HEARING Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-024 PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCEDURE 22-024 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 102 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-043 22-025 DISMISSAL OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING 22-025 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-026 PROCEDURE AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING 22-026 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-027 HEARING NOT HELD IN COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR AID 22-027 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-028 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HEARING DECISIONS 22-028 Renumbered by Manual Letter No. CFC-95-02, effective 5\/12\/95. 22-043 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING 22-043 .1 The State Hearings Division shall mail to the claimant acknowledgement in writing of all requests for state hearings. .11 Such acknowledgement shall also be sent to the county if the county did not receive the original request. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-045 22-045 SETTING THE HEARING 22-045 .1 The state hearing shall be held in California in the county in which the claimant is living at the time of the hearing unless the parties agree to conduct the hearing at another location. (See Section 22-056 for out-of-state residents.) .11 If the claimant is unable to attend the hearing at the hearing location for reasons of poor health, the hearing shall be held in the claimant’s home or in another place agreed to by the county and the claimant. .12 The State Hearings Division may request verification from the claimant to support the reason why he\/she cannot attend the hearing at the hearing location, and shall deny a request for a different hearing location in the absence of such requested verification. .13 The State Hearings Division shall be permitted to schedule hearings to be conducted by telephone or video conference in lieu of an in-person hearing. Such hearings shall be conducted by telephone or video conference only if the claimant agrees. .131 If the claimant later rescinds the agreement for a telephone hearing up to the time of the commencement of the hearing, an in-person hearing will be scheduled and this shall be considered a postponement for good cause. .132 The Administrative Law Judge may terminate the telephone hearing or video conference at the request of either party or on his\/her own motion and order an in-person hearing when he\/she determines that a party’s right to due process is being prejudiced by the telephone hearing or video conference procedure. .2 The hearing shall be conducted at a reasonable time, date, and place. .21 In the Food Stamp Program, the State Hearings Division shall expedite the scheduling of hearings requested by households who expect to leave the State. See Section 22-073.243. .3 The State Hearings Division shall mail or provide to the claimant and the county a written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least ten days prior to the hearing. .31 The time of notice shall be permitted to be shortened with the consent of the parties. .32 Any party shall be permitted to waive notice. .33 If either party has not received notice of the hearing at least ten days prior to the hearing date, such party shall be granted a postponement, if it requests a postponement. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code; 7 CFR 273.15(b); and 45 CFR 205.10(a)(2). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 104 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-047 22-047 GROUP HEARINGS 22-047 .1 A group of claimants with a common complaint may request that the State Hearings Division establish a group hearing. .2 The State Hearings Division may schedule a group hearing when in a series of individual requests for a state hearing the sole issue set forth in the request is one involving state or federal law or changes in state or federal law. .3 In all group hearings, each individual claimant shall be permitted to present his\/her own case, and shall be permitted to be represented by any person he\/she may desire. .4 A separate written decision shall be issued to each claimant in a group hearing. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 105 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-049 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-049 THE HEARING – GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES 22-049 .1 Attendance at the hearing is ordinarily limited to the claimant, authorized representative (as defined in Section 22-001(a)(6)), county representative, legal counsel, authorized interpreter, and witnesses relevant to the issue. Other persons may attend the hearing if the claimant agrees to or requests their presence and the Administrative Law Judge determines that their presence will not be adverse to the hearing. .11 Appearance by the claimant (in person or by the authorized representative) shall be required at the hearing, unless the hearing is a rehearing or further hearing. .111 The claimant shall not be required to designate an authorized representative and may represent him\/herself at all stages of the hearing process. Also see Section 22-085 and Section 22-101. .12 The Administrative Law Judge shall be permitted to exclude a witness during the testimony of other witnesses. .13 Both the county and the claimant shall have the right to have a representative present throughout the hearing. Both the county representative and the claimant’s authorized representative shall have the right to designate another person to be present and advise the representative throughout the hearing. This individual may be a witness who testifies on behalf of the county or claimant and in this circumstance, Section 22-049.12 would not apply. If this individual is a witness, he\/she may not be present as an advisor until after he\/she has testified. .14 The Administrative Law Judge shall have the authority to exclude persons who are disruptive of the hearing. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 106 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-049 (Cont.) 22-049 THE HEARING – GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES (Continued) 22-049 .2 The hearing shall be conducted in an impartial manner. .3 All testimony shall be submitted under oath, affirmation, or penalty of perjury. .4 The proceedings at the hearing shall be reported by tape recorder or otherwise perpetuated by mechanical, electronic, or other means capable of reproduction or transcription. .5 The issues at the hearing shall be limited to those issues which are reasonably related to the request for hearing or other issues identified by either the county or claimant which they have jointly agreed, prior to or at the state hearing, to discuss. .51 If the rights of any party will be prejudiced by the consideration of a reasonably related issue raised at the hearing, the hearing shall be continued or the record held open subject to the provisions of Section 22-053.3 so that such party may prepare his\/her case. .52 If the claimant contends that he\/she is not adequately prepared to discuss the issues because he\/she did not receive the notice required by Section 21-115.2 or 22-071.1, this issue shall be resolved by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing. .521 If the Administrative Law Judge determines that adequate and language-compliant notice was provided, the claimant shall agree to discuss the substantive issues or the case will be dismissed. .522 If the Administrative Law Judge determines that adequate and\/or language-compliant notice was required but not provided, the case shall be postponed unless the claimant waives the adequate and language-compliant notice requirements, as applicable, for purposes of proceeding with the hearing, and agrees to discuss the substantive issues at the hearing. (a) A postponement for this reason shall be deemed a postponement for good cause. (b) When the Administrative Law Judge has determined that adequate and\/or language-compliant notice was not provided but the claimant waives those requirements, as applicable, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct the hearing on the substantive issues and submit a decision on those issues. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 107 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-049 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-049 THE HEARING – GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES (Continued) 22-049 .523 If adequate and\/or language-compliant notice was required but not provided and involved a discontinuance, suspension, cancellation, termination or reduction of aid, other than those referred to in Sections 22-072.1 through .13, aid shall be reinstated retroactively and the provisions of Section 22-072.5 shall apply. .53 If a jurisdictional issue is raised, the county must prepare a position statement on both jurisdictional and substantive issues. The parties must be prepared to submit evidence, on both the jurisdictional and substantive issues, except as provided in Sections 22-049.531, 22-049.532 and 22-054.4. .531 Prior to the hearing, a party may request in writing to the regional Presiding Administrative Law Judge that a hearing be limited to the jurisdictional issue. A copy of that request shall be sent to the other party. The Presiding Administrative Law Judge shall make a preliminary determination and inform the parties that: (a) the hearing shall proceed only on the jurisdictional issue; or (b) the hearing shall proceed on both jurisdictional and substantive issues. .532 If, prior to or at the hearing, both parties agree to discuss only the jurisdictional issue, or the Administrative Law Judge on his\/her own motion determines that only the jurisdictional issue will be discussed, the parties need not submit evidence on the substantive issues and the Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence only on the jurisdictional issue. The Administrative Law Judge shall: (a) Inform the parties orally at the hearing or in writing within ten days after the hearing that the hearing will not proceed on the substantive issues and a decision will be prepared solely on the jurisdictional issue, or (b) Inform the parties orally at the hearing or in writing within ten days after the hearing that an additional hearing will be held on the substantive issues, and provide the parties a minimum of ten days in which to prepare on the substantive issues. .6 An interpreter shall be provided by the state if, prior to the hearing, a party requests an interpreter or if at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge determines that an interpreter is necessary. .61 When the state hearing is to be held with the assistance of an interpreter, the Administrative Law Judge shall determine if the interpreter has been certified by the Department. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 108 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-049 (Cont.) 22-049 THE HEARING – GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES (Continued) 22-049 .611 If the interpreter has been certified, the qualifications and competency of the interpreter need not be further examined except that the Administrative Law Judge shall examine the interpreter with regard to any personal or economic interest in the matter and shall disqualify an interpreter with any such interest. .612 If the interpreter has not been certified, the Administrative Law Judge shall: (a) Examine the qualifications and competency of the interpreter. (b) Disqualify any interpreter determined by the Administrative Law Judge not to be competent for interpretation purposes. (c) Assure objective interpretation by, at his\/her discretion, disqualifying interpreters who are: (1) Claimant’s relatives, friends, or an authorized representative. (2) County staff who participated in making the decision complained of. (3) The county appeals representative. (4) Any other individual determined by the Administrative Law Judge to be detrimental to the hearing process or having a bias or the appearance of being biased. .62 When the state hearing is held with the assistance of an interpreter the Administrative Law Judge shall assure objective interpretation. .63 A separate oath or affirmation to translate accurately and maintain confidentiality shall be administered to all interpreters. .7 The rights of the claimant and the county shall include the right to: .71 Examine parties and witnesses. .72 Conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full disclosure of the facts. .73 Introduce exhibits. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 109 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-049 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-049 THE HEARING – GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES (Continued) 22-049 .74 Bring witnesses. .75 Examine all documents prior to and during the hearing. .76 Question opposing witnesses and parties on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination. .77 Make oral or written argument. .78 Rebut the evidence. .8 The following shall apply to communications concerning the hearing: .81 All documents submitted by either the claimant or the county shall be made available to both parties. .811 Copies of all such documents shall be provided to the claimant free of charge. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (a) See Section 22-073.25 regarding position statement requirements. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .82 Merits of a pending state hearing shall not be discussed between the Administrative Law Judge and a party outside the presence of the other party. .9 Whenever it is necessary that another county be joined as a party to the action in order to dispose of all issues, the Administrative Law Judge shall so order and shall, subject to Section 22-053.3, postpone the hearing, hold the record of the hearing open, or continue the hearing as necessary. .91 A postponement for this reason shall be deemed a postponement for good cause. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, 10955, 10958.1 and 10967, Welfare and Institutions Code; and Section 11435.65, Government Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 110 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-050 (Cont.) 22-050 EVIDENCE 22-050 .1 The taking of evidence in a hearing shall be conducted by the Administrative Law Judge in a manner best suited to ascertain the facts and to control the conduct of the hearing. .11 Prior to taking evidence, the Administrative Law Judge shall identify the issues and shall state the order in which evidence shall be received. .2 Except as provided below, evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. .21 The Administrative Law Judge shall not be bound by rules of procedure or evidence applicable in judicial proceedings. .22 The Administrative Law Judge shall be permitted to exclude evidence which is irrelevant, cumulative or unduly repetitious. .23 The Administrative Law Judge shall exclude evidence which is privileged under the Evidence Code if the privilege is claimed in accordance with law. .3 Although evidence may be admissible under Section 22-050.2, the Administrative Law Judge shall consider the nature of the evidence in assessing its probative value. .4 \”Official Notice\” describes the manner in which an Administrative Law Judge or the Director will recognize the existence and truth of certain facts which have a bearing on the issue in the case, without requiring the actual production of evidence to prove such facts. Official notice may be taken of either a proposition of law or a proposition of fact. .41 The Administrative Law Judge or Director shall take official notice of those matters which must be judicially noticed by a court under Section 451 of the Evidence Code. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .411 Generally, Section 451 of the Evidence Code provides that judicial notice must be taken of laws, statutes, regulations, official records, and facts and propositions which are of such universal knowledge that they are not reasonably subject to dispute. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 111 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-050 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-050 EVIDENCE (Continued) 22-050 .42 The Administrative Law Judge may take official notice of those matters set forth in Section 452 of the Evidence Code. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .421 Generally, Section 452 of the Evidence Code provides that official notice may be taken of facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .43 The Administrative Law Judge may take official notice of any generally accepted technical fact relating to the administration of public social service. .44 With respect to matters under Subsection 22-050.43 above and subdivision (f) of Section 451 and Section 452 of the Evidence Code which are of substantial consequence to the determination of the action, each party shall be given reasonable opportunity, before the decision is submitted, to respond to the propriety of the Administrative Law Judge taking official notice of some facts. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-051 THE EXAMINATION OF RECORDS AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 22-051 .1 Upon request, the CWD shall allow the claimant to examine the case record during regular working hours (see Section 19-005). .11 If portions of the case record are privileged under the provisions of Section 19-006, the claimant shall be entitled to inspect such material only if the claimant is the holder of the privilege. .2 The claimant shall have the right prior to and during the hearing, to examine nonprivileged information which the county has used in making its decision to take the action which is being appealed. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 112 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-051 22-051 THE EXAMINATION OF RECORDS AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 22-051 (Continued) .3 The CWD shall reproduce without charge, or at a charge related to the cost of reproduction, the specific policy materials, including regulations, necessary for an applicant or recipient, or his\/her authorized representative, to determine whether a state hearing should be requested or to prepare for a state hearing. .31 In the Food Stamp Program, such material shall be made available to the household or its authorized representative at no charge. .4 Before the hearing has commenced, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or his\/her designee shall be permitted to, upon the written or oral request of the claimant or the CWD, issue a: .41 Subpoena requiring the presence of any witness whose expected testimony has been shown to be relevant, and not cumulative or unduly repetitious. .42 Subpoena duces tecum for the production by a witness of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, or other records. .421 The person who requests the subpoena duces tecum shall submit a statement under penalty of perjury describing the materials desired to be produced and their relevancy. .422 A witness may comply with the subpoena duces tecum by providing certified copies of the material requested. .5 After the hearing has commenced, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case shall be permitted to issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum as necessary. .6 The party requesting the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall have the responsibility of having it served. The service of the subpoena shall be made to allow the witness subpoenaed a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 113 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-052 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-052 WITNESS FEES AND MILEAGE 22-052 .1 A witness who is subpoenaed at the request of the claimant and who appears at the hearing shall be permitted to demand payment for witness fees and mileage from the Department on a form specified by that Department. .11 The amount of witness fees and mileage paid shall be the same as the amount specified in the Government Code for witness fees and mileage. .2 A witness who is subpoenaed at the request of the county and who appears at the hearing shall be permitted to demand payment for witness fees and mileage from the county on a form specified by the county. .21 The amount of witness fees and mileage paid shall be the same as the amount specified in the Government Code for witness fees and mileage. 22-053 POSTPONEMENTS AND CONTINUANCES FOR ADDITIONAL 22-053 EVIDENCE .1 Postponements are subject to the following conditions. .11 Claimant requests. .111 If a hearing request includes an issue regarding the Food Stamp Program, a claimant’s first request for a postponement made prior to hearing shall be granted. The hearing shall be postponed for no more than 30 days. A claimant in a Food Stamp case may request additional postponements under Section 22-053.112. .112 A hearing may be postponed upon the request of a claimant if such request meets the good cause criteria set forth in Section 22-053.113. The Department shall have the authority to request verification from the claimant that there is good cause for a requested postponement. .113 Good cause applies if the claimant or authorized representative establishes that the hearing should be postponed for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) A death in the family. (b) Personal illness or injury. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 114 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-053 (Cont.) 22-053 POSTPONEMENTS AND CONTINUANCES FOR 22-053 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (Continued) (c) Sudden and unexpected emergencies that prevent the claimant or the claimant’s authorized representative from appearing. (d) A conflicting court appearance that cannot be postponed. (e) The claimant contends that he\/she is not adequately prepared to discuss the issues because he\/she did not receive an adequate and\/or language-compliant notice, and the Administrative Law Judge determines that the required notice was not received. (See Section 22-049.52.) (f) The county, when required, does not make a position statement available to the claimant at least two working days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, or the county has modified the position statement (as defined in Section 22- 073.253) after providing the statement to the claimant, and the claimant has waived decision deadlines contained in Section 22-060. .12 County requests. .121 The Administrative Law Judge at the hearing shall have the authority to postpone the hearing, at his or her discretion, at the request of the county. .122 Any postponement granted pursuant to Section 22-053.121 shall be deemed a postponement for good cause for aid pending purposes. .13 Administrative Law Judge postponements. .131 The Chief Administrative Law Judge or his\/her designee shall have the authority to postpone a hearing prior to the hearing at his or her discretion. .132 Any postponement granted pursuant to Section 22-053.131 shall be deemed a postponement for good cause. .133 The Administrative Law Judge shall have the authority to postpone a hearing, at the hearing, at his\/her discretion. .14 Hearing notice not received. .141 A hearing shall be postponed if either party has not received notice of the time and place of the hearing at least ten days prior to the hearing and that party requests a postponement. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 115 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-053 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-053 POSTPONEMENTS AND CONTINUANCES FOR 22-053 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE (Continued) .142 Any postponement granted pursuant to Section 22-053.141 shall be deemed a postponement for good cause. .2 Continuances for additional evidence shall be granted under limited conditions. .21 If the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing determines that evidence not available at the hearing is necessary for the proper determination of the case, the Administrative Law Judge shall have the authority to continue the hearing to a later date or close the hearing and hold the record open for a stated period not to exceed 30 days in order to permit the submission of additional documentary evidence. .3 When a hearing is postponed, continued, or reopened at the claimant’s request, the 60-day or 90-day period provided in Section 22-060 shall be extended. Any such requests for postponement, continuance, or reopening of a hearing may not exceed 30 days each. Every time a claimant requests a postponement, continuance, or reopening, he\/she must be given a written notice that explains that the time for rendering a decision will be extended for a period not to exceed 30 days. .4 Aid Pending Hearing .41 If a first pontponement of a case in the Food Stamp Program is granted at the claimant’s request under Section 22-053.111, any aid pending shall continue until at least the earlier of the next scheduled hearing or the end of the certification period. See Section 63-804.64. .42 If a postponement is granted under Section 22-053.133, the Administrative Law Judge shall order that aid pending be continued only if the postponement was for good cause. .43 Except in the Food Stamp Program as provided in Section 22-053.431, if a postponement is granted for good cause, aid pending shall be continued at least until the next scheduled hearing. .431 If a postponement is granted for good cause on a food stamp issue after the initial postponement, aid pending shall continue until at least the earlier of the next scheduled hearing or the end of the certification period. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, 10952, 10952.5, and 10957, Welfare and Institutions Code and 7 CFR 273.15(c) and (k)(2)(i). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 116 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-054 (Cont.) 22-054 DISMISSALS 22-054 .1 Except in the CalWORKs Program, the State Hearings Division shall deny or dismiss a request for a hearing where the sole issue is one of state or federal law requiring automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients. .11 Aid shall not be continued in the amount that claimant would have been paid if the adjustment had not been made. .2 In cases other than those specified in .1 above, and .4 below, a request for hearing shall not be dismissed prior to the hearing unless it has been withdrawn or abandoned. .21 Withdrawal .211 The claimant may withdraw his\/her hearing request any time before a decision of the Director is signed. (a) Such withdrawal shall be submitted in writing. If the claimant has verbally withdrawn the hearing request prior to the hearing, and such withdrawal is unconditional, the Department will send the claimant a letter confirming the withdrawal of the request. The letter shall serve as the written withdrawal. The request for hearing shall be considered withdrawn unless within 15 days of the mailing of such letter, the Department receives notice, either submitted in writing or orally, that the claimant has not withdrawn the request for hearing. (b) A withdrawal may be unconditional or conditional. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (1) See Section 22-072.71 regarding the effect of withdrawal on aid pending. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 117 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-054 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-054 DISMISSALS (Continued) 22-054 (2) If the withdrawal is unconditional, the hearing request shall be immediately dismissed. (A) The dismissal shall be without prejudice in that the claimant may be permitted to file a new hearing request raising the identical issue provided that the request is filed timely pursuant to Section 22-009. (3) If the withdrawal is conditional: (A) The withdrawal shall be accompanied by an agreement signed by the claimant and by the county. (B) Any agreement under this provision shall provide that the actions of both parties will be completed within 30 days from the date the conditional withdrawal form is signed by both parties and received by the county. See Section 22-071.14 regarding adequate notice with conditional withdrawal. (C) After the county issues notice of its redetermination, if the claimant does not reinstate the hearing request within the time limits set forth in Section 22-009, the request shall be dismissed. .22 Abandonment .221 If the claimant fails to appear by him\/her self or by authorized representative at the scheduled hearing, the request for hearing shall be considered abandoned and a written decision shall be issued dismissing the claim. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 118 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-054 (Cont.) 22-054 DISMISSALS (Continued) 22-054 .222 The claimant shall have the right to request that the dismissal decision be set aside and to have a new hearing if good cause is established for not attending the hearing. Such request must be made within 15 days of the date the dismissal decision is received by the claimant. (a) The criteria for good cause shall include, but not be limited to: (1) The failure of the claimant to receive notice of the time and place of the hearing. The notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be mailed to the claimant’s last known address and good cause shall not be established if the claimant failed to notify the county or Department of any change of address while the appeal was pending. (2) The criteria set forth in Section 22-053.113. (b) If a new hearing is granted and a decision dismissing the claim is set aside, any applicable aid paid pending shall be reinstated as specified in Section 22- 072.611. (c) If a new hearing is not granted and a decision dismissing the claim is not set aside, the claimant shall be notified in writing as to the specific reasons the decision was not set aside and the right to appeal such dismissal in Superior Court. (d) The Department shall have authority to request a written declaration or other verification from the claimant to support the reason for the nonappearance. .3 A request for hearing or portion thereof shall be dismissed by a written hearing decision when: .31 The issue is not within the jurisdiction of a state hearing as defined in Section 22-003.1 and Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 119 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-054 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-054 DISMISSALS (Continued) 22-054 .32 The request for hearing is filed beyond the time limit set forth in Section 22-009. .33 The Administrative Law Judge determines at the hearing that the claimant or authorized representative is unwilling to present his\/her case. .34 The Administrative Law Judge determines that the identical issue has been the subject of a previous state hearing involving the claimant. .35 The person who requests the hearing does not have standing to request the hearing. See Section 22-001c.(2). .36 The Administrative Law Judge fails to receive a written authorization following the hearing as specified in Section 22-085.2. .37 The request for hearing raises a compliance issue, e.g., an allegation that the county has failed to comply with a previously adopted state hearing decision. See Section 22-078. .4 The Chief Administrative Law Judge, or his\/her designee, shall have authority to dismiss, without a hearing and written decision, a hearing request which is subject to dismissal under Sections 22-054.31, .32 or .37. .41 Prior to such dismissal, a letter setting out the reasons for the dismissal shall be sent to the claimant indicating that a dismissal shall occur within 15 days unless the claimant sets forth further facts and\/or argument, orally or in writing, which would indicate that the matter should not be dismissed. .42 If the claimant presents information that may indicate that the matter should not be dismissed, a hearing shall be scheduled. .43 If the claimant presents information but it fails to establish that the matter should be heard, the request shall be dismissed and a hearing will not be scheduled. The claimant shall be notified of the reasons for such action. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code and 45 CFR 205.10(a)(5)(8). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 120 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-055 22-055 DISQUALIFICATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 22-055 .1 An Administrative Law Judge shall voluntarily disqualify himself or herself and withdraw from any proceeding in which he\/she cannot give a fair and impartial hearing or in which he\/she has an interest. .2 A party may request at any time prior to the close of the record, that the Administrative Law Judge be disqualified upon the grounds that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be held or a decision cannot be rendered. .21 Such request shall be ruled upon by the Administrative Law Judge prior to the close of the record. The Administrative Law Judge’s determination is subject to rehearing review and judicial review in the same manner and to the same extent as other determinations of the Administrative Law Judge in the proceeding. .3 If, at the beginning or during the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge upholds a party’s motion for disqualification, the matter shall be postponed. A postponement due to a disqualification of an Administrative Law Judge shall be considered a postponement with good cause. If, after the hearing, but before the close of the record the Administrative Law Judge determines that disqualification is appropriate, the provisions of Section 22-061 shall apply. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 121 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-056 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-056 CLAIMANT LIVING OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA\/ 22-056 INSTITUTIONALIZED CLAIMANTS .1 When a request for a state hearing is received from a person presently living outside of the state, or from an inmate or patient of a California penal institution or other institution, it shall be acknowledged and reported in the same manner as other requests for a state hearing. .11 Unless the claimant voluntarily offers to return to California for the hearing or authorizes a representative in California, the parties shall be advised that the hearing will be conducted by telephone. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 122 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-060 22-059 COMMUNICATIONS AFTER HEARING 22-059 .1 After the hearing record is closed, communications to the Department concerning a case shall be excluded from the record and shall be disregarded prior to the adoption and release of the decision of the Director except that: .11 Oral and written communications concerning the status of the decision, or the date of delivery of additional evidence to be submitted under the provisions of Section 22-053.21, or protesting an Administrative Law Judge’s determination under Section 22-072.63 with respect to aid pending a hearing or a disqualification request under the provisions of Section 22-055, are not improper; and .12 An Administrative Law Judge shall have authority on his\/her own motion or at the request of either party to reopen the record for receipt of additional information, if all parties are notified of the reason for the reopening and the submission of such evidence conforms to the requirements of Sections 22-053.21 and .3. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code; and 11430.10(a), Government Code. 22-060 DISPOSITION OF STATE HEARINGS 22-060 .1 All state hearings shall be decided or dismissed within 90 days from the date of the request for state hearing except in those cases where the claimant waives such requirement or the claimant withdraws or abandons the request for hearing. .11 If the claimant conditionally withdraws the hearing request under the provisions of Section 22- 054.21, the 90-day period shall extend from the date on which the request for hearing is reinstated. .12 In the Food Stamp Program, all state hearings shall be decided or dismissed and the claimant and CWD notified of the decision within 60 days from the date of the request for a state hearing. The same exceptions apply as stated in .1 above. .121 If the issues at a state hearing concern both public assistance and food stamp benefits, the hearing shall be conducted according to public assistance procedures and the 90-day rather than the 60-day period shall apply. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 123 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-061 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-061 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED DECISION\/ADOPTION 22-061 .1 After the hearing has been closed, the Administrative Law Judge shall submit a proposed decision for review by the Chief Administrative Law Judge and submission to the Director, or shall adopt a final decision pursuant to the authority delegated to the Administrative Law Judge by the Director. .2 If the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case is unavailable to prepare the proposed decision, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or his\/her designee shall contact the claimant and the county and notify each party that the case is being assigned to another Administrative Law Judge for preparation of the decision on the record. .21 The notice shall inform the claimant that he\/she may elect to have a new oral hearing held in the matter, provided that he\/she agrees to waive the 90-day or 60-day period set forth in Section 22- 060. .22 An Administrative Law Judge shall be considered unavailable within the meaning of this section if he\/she: .221 Is incapacitated. .222 Has ceased employment as an Administrative Law Judge. .223 Is disqualified under Section 22-055. .3 The Department shall be deemed to have received the proposed decision on the date such decision has been certified for the review of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. .4 Decisions rendered by Administrative Law Judges pursuant to the authority delegated to them by the Director shall be considered final upon signing and dating by the Administrative Law Judge. .5 Decisions issued by Administrative Law Judges shall be based exclusively on the evidence and other material introduced at the hearing, or after the hearing but while the record is open, and shall specify the reasons for the decision and identify the supporting evidence and regulations. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code and 45 CFR 205.10(a)(15)(ii). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 124 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-062 22-062 ACTION BY THE DIRECTOR 22-062 .1 The Director after receiving the proposed decision shall: .11 Adopt the decision in its entirety; or .12 Decide the matter on the record, including the transcript, with or without taking additional evidence-an alternate decision; or .13 Order a further hearing to be conducted. .2 If the Director fails to act in the manner specified in .1 above within 30 days after the Department’s receipt of the proposed decision, the proposed decision shall be deemed adopted. .3 The decision of the Director shall be in writing. .31 The decision shall include: .311 A statement of the facts. .312 The statutes and regulations involved. .313 The reasoning which supports the decision. .4 The decision shall determine only those circumstances and issues existing at the time of the county action in dispute or otherwise agreed to by the parties. .5 In cases involving allegations of discrimination and preparation of a report in accordance with Section 21-203.2, the case shall be remanded to the county for the preparation of a report in accordance with Section 21-203.12. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 125 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-063 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-063 NOTICE OF DECISION 22-063 .1 After the Administrative Law Judge’s proposed or final decision is adopted or an alternate decision is rendered by the Director, a copy shall be mailed to the claimant and the county. .11 The notice of decision shall contain: .111 Applicable rehearing rights. .112 A statement concerning the right to judicial review. .113 A statement advising the claimant that, if the court decides the case in his\/her favor, he\/she shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit. .2 If the Director: .21 Renders an alternate decision, a copy of both the Administrative Law Judge’s proposed decision and the Director’s alternate decision shall be mailed to the claimant and the county. .22 Orders a further hearing, the State Hearings Division shall mail a copy of the voided proposed decision with the notice of the scheduled further hearing. .3 The Director retains jurisdiction to rectify clerical errors contained in the decision after the decision has been issued. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10959, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-064 AVAILABILITY OF STATE HEARING RECORDS 22-064 .1 The recording of the hearing, or an official report containing the substance of what transpired at the hearing, together with all papers and the request filed in the proceedings, and any final, proposed or alternate decision shall constitute the exclusive record. Such materials shall be available to the claimant and the county during normal working hours at the State Hearings Division or at a mutually agreed- upon location for three years after the date of any decision issued by the Director. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10956, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 126 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-065 (Cont.) 22-065 REHEARING 22-065 .1 The claimant or the county may file a request for a rehearing. .11 Such request shall be in writing and shall be filed with the State Hearings Division not more than 30 days after receipt of the hearing decision. .111 The request shall not be required to be in any particular form. .112 For requests involving a decision issued by the California Department of Health Services, the request shall be mailed to the California Department of Social Services. .113 Such request shall specify the reasons for the rehearing request. .12 If the request is to permit presentation of additional evidence, the request shall: .121 Describe the additional evidence; .122 State why it was not previously introduced; and .123 Explain its materiality. .124 Explain how the additional evidence will change the outcome of the hearing decision. .13 The request shall state the date the decision was received. .131 In the absence of such statement, the date of receipt shall be either three days after the date of the postmark on the envelope containing the decision or three days after the date the decision was released by the Department, whichever is later. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 127 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-065 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-065 REHEARING (Continued) 22-065 .14 The postmark on the envelope containing the rehearing request shall be the filing date. .141 If the postmark on the envelope is unreadable, the filing date shall be the date the request for rehearing is signed. .142 If the postmark is unreadable and the request for rehearing is undated, the filing date shall be three days prior to the date the rehearing request is stamped \”received\” by the Department. .2 Upon receipt of a timely rehearing request, the Director shall mail a copy of the request to the other party to the hearing. .21 This party shall be permitted to file a statement supporting or opposing the rehearing request. .211 Such statement shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director not later than five days after service. (a) The filing date shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of .14 above. .3 The Director shall grant or deny the request no earlier than five nor later than 15 working days after it is received by the State Hearings Division. .31 If the Director does not act within this period, the request for rehearing shall be deemed denied. .4 If a request for rehearing is granted, the Director may order the Administrative Law Judge to review one, several, or all issues which were presented for review at the original state hearing. The Director may: .41 Order a rehearing on the record to consider the evidence in the record and any additional written or documentary evidence which may be submitted by the claimant or the county. Any evidence obtained shall be submitted to the opposing party for rebuttal. .42 Order an oral rehearing. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 128 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-065 22-065 REHEARING (Continued) 22-065 .5 Where the Director orders a rehearing on the record, the claimant and the county shall be informed that either party may request that the rehearing be conducted as an oral rehearing. .51 Any such requests received within 15 days of the date of the notice advising of the rehearing on the record shall be honored. .6 The following shall not be subject to a rehearing: .61 A rehearing decision, except on an issue that was decided for the first time on the merits in the rehearing decision. .62 A hearing request that has been dismissed pursuant to Section 22-054.4. .63 A compliance issue as defined in Section 22-001(c)(3). .7 When a request for rehearing is denied, the Notice of Denial shall contain a statement concerning a right to judicial review and shall advise the claimant that, if the court decides the case in his\/her favor, he\/she shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit. .8 A rehearing request shall be permitted to be withdrawn anytime before the Department has acted upon the request. .9 After a rehearing request has been granted, it shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the requesting party subject to the approval of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, his\/her designee or the Administrative Law Judge. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554 and 10960, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10960, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-070 22-069 COUNTY WELFARE RESPONSIBILITY 22-069 .1 Each county shall furnish to the State Hearings Division the name of an individual who, in coordination with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, is responsible for discharging the requirements of Sections 22-069 through 22-078. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .11 Sections 22-069 through 22-078 describe the responsibilities of the county in the state hearing process. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .12 The county responsibility shall include: .121 Submission of the original hearing request to the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing. .122 Review of the case and assistance to the claimant prior to the hearing; and .123 Presentation of the county’s position during the hearing; and .124 Compliance with state hearing decisions. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-070 EXPLANATION OF RIGHT TO STATE HEARING 22-070 .1 At the time of application, the county agency shall provide the applicant with the following: .11 A thorough explanation of the right to request a state hearing. .12 Pamphlet PUB 13 (1\/98), \”Your Rights Under California Welfare Programs,\” prepared by the Department concerning client rights, complaints and state hearings. .2 The county shall also provide the explanation required in Sections 22-070.11 when a claimant makes an informal complaint with the county agency. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 130 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-071 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-071 ADEQUATE NOTICE 22-071 .1 Except as provided in Section 22-071.2, the county shall give the claimant adequate notice as defined in Section 22-001(a)(1) in the following instances: .11 When aid is granted or increased. .12 For CalWORKs and Food Stamp cases, Section 22-071.12(MR) shall become inoperative and Section 22-071.12(QR) shall become operative in a county on the date Quarterly Reporting\/Prospective Budgeting (QR\/PB) becomes effective in that county, pursuant to the Director’s QR\/PB Declaration. (MR) For CalWORKs and Food Stamp cases, when aid is denied, decreased, suspended, cancelled, discontinued, or terminated. (QR) For CalWORKs and Food Stamp cases, when aid is denied, decreased, not changed following a recipient mid-quarter report, cancelled, or discontinued. When aid is not changed due to a voluntary recipient mid-quarter report, the notice shall be sent as soon as administratively possible but no later than thirty days from the date the voluntary report is made. .13 For all cases other than CalWORKs and Food Stamp cases, when aid is denied, decreased, suspended, cancelled, discontinued, or terminated. .131 For purposes of Sections 22-071.12 and .13, a decrease shall include an overpayment adjustment and balancing. .14 When the county demands repayment of an overpayment or a food stamp overissuance. .15 When the county takes action after the claimant has conditionally withdrawn a request for a state hearing (see Section 22-054). .16 When a food stamp application is pended (see Section 63-504.24). .17 When the county determines that immediate need does not exist (see Section 40-129). .18 When the county takes action regarding compliance related issues resulting from state hearing decisions (see Sections 22-001c.(3) and 22-078). .19 When the county takes action to change the manner or form of payment to a protective or vendor payment. .2 The adequate notice requirement is not applicable to certain actions involving Social Services (Division 30) and Food Stamps (MPP Section 63-504.266). .3 In all cases, the notice shall be prepared on approved Department forms or a county substitution which has been approved by the California Department of Social Services, including but not limited to a county-developed computer equivalent. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 131 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-072 (Cont.) 22-071 ADEQUATE NOTICE 22-071 (Continued) .4 The notice shall be prepared in clear, nontechnical language. .5 If a claimant submits a request for a state hearing on the back of the notice, a duplicate copy of the notice shall be provided to the claimant on request. .6 When appropriate, the notice shall also inform the claimant regarding what information or action, if any, is needed to reestablish eligibility or determine a correct amount of aid. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10604, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, 10613, 11209, 11265.2, and 11265.3, Welfare and Institutions Code; and 45 CFR 255.4(j)(1) and 256.4(b). 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 .1 Except as provided below, in all instances where the county action would result in a discontinuance, termination, suspension, cancellation, or decrease of aid, or in a change in the manner or form of payment to a protective or vendor payment, the county shall mail timely and adequate notice as defined in Sections 22-001a.(1) and 22-001t.(1) to the persons affected. .11 The provisions of Section 22-072 shall not apply to certain actions involving Social Services (see Division 30). .12 In the Food Stamp Program the provisions of Section 22-072 shall be limited and modified by Sections 63-504.266, .267, 63-804.6, and 63-107.9. .13 When either state or federal law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients, the Department shall provide timely and adequate notice to the persons affected or shall direct the county to give such notice at least ten days prior to the effective date of the adjustment. .2 Timely notice shall not be required in the following instances, although the county shall send adequate notice no later than the effective date of the action: (a) The county has factual information confirming the death of the person affected. (b) The county receives a clear written statement signed by the person affected that: (1) He\/she no longer wishes aid, or CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 132 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-072 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) (2) Gives information which requires discontinuance or reduction of aid and the person has indicated, in writing, that he\/she understands that this must be the consequence of supplying such information. (c) The person affected has been admitted or committed to an institution, and further payments to that individual do not qualify for federal financial participation under the state’s plan. (d) The person affected has been placed in a skilled nursing facility, intermediate care facility or long-term hospitalization. (e) The whereabouts of the person affected are unknown and the county mail directed to him\/her has been returned to the Post Office indicating no known forwarding address. (1) The person’s aid payment shall be made available to him\/her if his\/her whereabouts become known during the payment period covered by the returned check. (f) A CalWORKs child is removed from the home as a result of a judicial determination, or voluntarily placed in foster care by his\/her parent or legal guardian. (g) The person affected has been accepted for aid in a new jurisdiction, and that fact has been established by the county previously providing aid. (h) A change in level of medical care is prescribed by the recipient patient’s physician or modified by utilization review. (i) A special allowance granted for a specific period is terminated, and the recipient has been informed in writing at the time of initiation that the allowance shall automatically terminate at the end of the specified period. (j) Section 22-072.2(j)(MR) shall become inoperative and Section 22-072.2(j)(QR) shall become operative in a county on the date QR\/PB becomes effective in that county, pursuant to the Director’s QR\/PB Declaration. (MR) The county receives a complete Monthly Eligibility Report (CA 7) after the eleventh calendar day of the report month and the county’s action to discontinue or decrease aid is a result of the information on the CA 7 or the recipient’s failure to submit a timely or complete report of earnings without good cause as specified in Section 40-181.23(MR). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-04-01 Effective 7\/1\/04 Page 133 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-072 (Cont.) 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) (QR) The county receives a complete Quarterly Eligibility Report (QR 7) after the eleventh calendar day of the QR Submit Month and the county’s action to discontinue or decrease aid is a result of the information on the QR 7 or the recipient’s failure to submit a timely or complete report of earnings without good cause as specified in Section 40-181.23(QR). HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (1) Subsection (j) is enjoined by the injunction in Saldivar v. McMahon. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE (k) The CWD has made a presumption of mismanagement of CalWORKs funds based upon a recipient’s nonpayment of rent. (1) A presumption of mismanagement based upon nonpayment of rent includes the inability of a recipient to provide verification that CalWORKs Homeless Assistance was spent on shelter\/housing, in accordance with Section 44-211.514(e). (l) Section 22-072.2(l)(QR) shall become operative in a county on the date QR\/PB becomes effective in that county, pursuant to the Director’s AR\/PB Declaration. (QR) For CalWORKs and Food Stamp cases, the county determines there will be no change in a recipient’s cash aid as a result of a recipient mid-quarter report. .3 If timely notice is not required under the provisions of Section 22-072.2, and the claimant requests a state hearing within ten days of the required adequate notice, aid shall be reinstated retroactively, according to the provisions of Section 22-072.5. .31 Aid shall not be reinstated retroactively if the CWD has made a presumption of mismanagement of CalWORKs funds based on the claimant’s nonpayment of rent. .4 In computing the notice period required by Section 22-072.1, the 10-day period shall not include the date of mailing, or the date that the action is to take effect. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .41 Thus, if the effective date of the action is to be June 1, the notice shall be mailed no later than May 21. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 134 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-072 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) .5 Except as provided in Sections 22-054.1 and 22-072.7, when the claimant files a request for a state hearing prior to the effective date of the Notice of Action, which is subject to Section 22-072.1, aid shall be continued in the amount that the claimant would have been paid if the proposed action were not to be taken, provided the claimant does not voluntarily and knowingly waive aid. This section shall not apply to CalWORKs (Welfare to Work) supportive services payments (see Section 42-750.213). In the Food Stamp Program, benefits shall be continued on the basis authorized immediately prior to the notice of adverse action. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .51 EXAMPLE: If the notice is mailed on April 20th to be effective May 1st, the request shall be filed before May 1. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .52 If the notice proposing action is required to be timely and is not, the hearing request shall be required to be filed before the next date on which the proposed action could become effective based on timely notice. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .521 EXAMPLE: If the notice is mailed April 21 to be effective May 1, the hearing request must be filed before the next regular benefit issuance date which occurs at least ten days after the April 21 notice. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .522 In the Food Stamp Program if a recipient fails to file a hearing request before the effective date of the proposed action, aid pending is appropriate provided the recipient establishes good cause with the State Hearings Division or the Administrative Law Judge (see Section 63-804.613). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 135 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-072 (Cont.) 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) (a) The criteria for good cause shall be as follows: (1) The claimant contends that he\/she did not receive adequate and\/or language-compliant notice and the Administrative Law Judge determines that the required notice was not received. (2) Any other substantial and compelling reason as determined by the Administrative Law Judge. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 136 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-072 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) .6 Aid pending shall cease when: .61 The claimant withdraws or abandons the request for a state hearing (see Section 22-054.2). If the withdrawal is conditional, the county shall provide aid pending retroactively and prospectively if the request for a hearing is subsequently reinstated (see Section 22-054.211, provided that the claimant has complied with conditions set forth in the agreement accompanying the conditional withdrawal. .611 If a hearing request is dismissed because the claimant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, but the decision dismissing the claim is set aside and a new hearing is granted as specified in Section 22-054.222, the county shall reinstate any applicable aid pending. .62 The Administrative Law Judge determines, based on the record of the state hearing, that the issue involved in such hearing is one of law or change in law and not one of incorrect application of law. .621 If the request for hearing involves multiple issues, the Administrative Law Judge shall determine that as to certain issues aid pending is appropriate while as to other issues aid pending is not appropriate. In such cases, aid may be reduced to the extent aid pending is not appropriate. .622 If the matter is rescheduled for further hearing as specified in Section 22-062.13, the aid pending determination made by the Administrative Law Judge at the original hearing shall be considered void. Aid shall be retroactively reinstated and continued until at least the date of the further hearing in the amount the claimant would have been paid if the proposed action were not to be taken, provided the claimant does not voluntarily and knowingly waive aid. .63 The claimant voluntarily and knowingly, in writing, waived the continuation of aid. .631 The county representative shall be permitted to explain to the claimant the right to waive aid pending but shall not be permitted to request such a waiver. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 137 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-072 22-072 TIMELY NOTICE – AID PENDING HEARING 22-072 (Continued) .64 The claimant is granted a postponement of the hearing by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing for a reason that does not constitute good cause as specified in Section 22-053.113. .641 This provision shall not apply to a first time postponement in the Food Stamp Program. .65 In the Food Stamp Program, the certification period expires (see Section 63-804.642(a)). .7 After the hearing, and within ten days from receipt of the aid paid pending decision, the claimant or the county may submit a written request to the State Hearings Division for reconsideration of the aid paid pending decision. .71 Each party shall be notified of the request and the result of the reconsideration. .8 Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the county from instituting any appropriate changes in the recipient’s grant while a state hearing is pending, provided that the factual basis of the proposed action is different from the action upon which the recipient is receiving aid pending. .81 All such actions shall otherwise be subject to the provisions of this chapter. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10604, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, 10613, 11209, and 11265.1, Welfare and Institutions Code; 7 CFR 273.15(c)(4); 45 CFR 205.10; 45 CFR 255.2(h)(2); 45 CFR 256.2(c); and 45 CFR 256.4(d). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 138 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-073 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING .1 Upon receipt of a request for hearing or notice from the Department that a recipient has filed a request for a state hearing, the county shall provide aid pending the state hearing in accordance with Section 22-072, when entitlement exists. .11 Such payment shall be either placed in the U.S. Mail or available for hand-delivery to the recipient (if agreed to by the county and recipient) within five working days of the receipt of the hearing request by the appropriate agency as specified in Section 22-004, or the date the regular scheduled aid payment would otherwise have been paid to the recipient, whichever is later. .12 If the claimant is not entitled to aid pending the hearing, the county may continue with its proposed action. .121 Unless the evidence indicates otherwise, the receipt date for purposes of providing (issuing) aid paid pending shall be determined as follows: (a) The date the written request is received by the CWD for county administered aid programs or the date the request is received by the Department for all other state aid programs. (b) The date the oral request is received by the Department in Sacramento. .122 The CWD shall compute the five day time limitation for paying aid paid pending from the date: (a) A written request for a state hearing is received by the CWD. (b) The CWD is notified by the State Hearings Division that it has received a written request for a state hearing. (c) An oral request for hearing is received by the Department in Sacramento. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-99-03 Effective 7\/16\/99 Page 139 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-073 (Cont.) 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING (Continued) .123 Upon receipt of an oral hearing request, the Department shall, within one working day of that receipt, notify the county that an oral hearing request has been filed and provide the county with sufficient information to provide aid paid pending when appropriate. .124 Misdirected Requests (a) In the event that a written hearing request is filed erroneously with the State Hearings Division, rather than with the CWD, such requests shall be forwarded to the county. (b) For requests filed erroneously in a county in which the claimant does not reside, and in which the CWD has not taken any action or inaction with which the claimant is dissatisfied, these requests shall be forwarded to the Department. The Department shall forward such requests to the proper county as defined in Section 22-001c.(4). (c) The provisions of Sections 22-073.122(a) and (b) shall be applicable to misdirected requests. .125 For state aid programs not administered by the CWD, the Department shall issue aid paid pending, when entitlement exists, to a recipient within five working days of the date a written or oral request for a state hearing is received by the Department. .13 Each case for which a state hearing request has been filed shall be assigned to a county representative who shall assume the major responsibility for preparing the case in accordance with the requirements of this Division and\/or presenting it at the hearing. The county representative shall not have had immediate prior involvement with the case. .2 Prior to the hearing, the county representative shall: .21 Determine the issues raised by the hearing request. .211 If the request for hearing does not clearly set forth the claimant’s basis for appeal, the county representative shall immediately contact the claimant for clarification. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 140 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-073 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING (Continued) .22 After determining the issues, the county representative shall review the applicable statutes, regulations and policies in light of the evidence which exists in the case record. .221 In conducting this initial review, the representative shall contact the eligibility worker and other county personnel as appropriate. .222 When assistance of the Department is required to clarify any questions, such assistance shall be sought without delay. .23 After conducting the initial review, the county representative shall make a determination concerning the appropriateness of the county action and the need for and advisability of a hearing. Disagreements and misunderstandings shall be resolved quickly, at the lowest possible administrative level, thereby avoiding unnecessary hearings. .231 If the county representative concludes that the county action was incorrect, the county representative shall contact the claimant and attempt to resolve the case without a hearing. (a) The county representative shall have the authority to make such a decision. The conditional withdrawal procedure described in Section 22-054.21 is usually appropriate in such instances. .232 If the county representative concludes that the county action was correct, the county representative shall contact the claimant and: (a) Inquire if the claimant plans to attend the hearing; (b) Determine if there are any further contentions which the claimant will attempt to raise at the hearing; and CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 141 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-073 (Cont.) 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING (Continued) (c) Provide any and all information which can be of assistance to the claimant in preparing for the hearing. This shall include revealing to the claimant any and all regulations and evidence including that which might be favorable to the claimant’s case. The county representative may explain to the claimant the right to withdraw the request for hearing but shall not be permitted to request such a withdrawal. The claimant shall also be informed of the availability of any free legal representation. If the claimant is not fluent in English and if bilingual services apply as specified in Section 21-115, an explanation of the hearing procedures shall be made in the claimant’s language. .24 The county representative shall advise the State Hearings Division if an interpreter may be necessary at the hearing or if a home hearing might be appropriate. .241 The county representative shall notify the State Hearings Division if the claimant has requested an interpreter or home hearing. .242 The county representative shall report without delay to the State Hearings Division any known changes in the claimant’s address or any other circumstances which might affect the necessity for or conduct of the hearing. (a) This responsibility to report known changes in the claimant’s circumstances continues after the hearing until a decision is rendered. .243 In the Food Stamp Program if a household requests a state hearing and informs the county that the household expects to leave the State prior to a normally scheduled hearing date, the county representative shall inform the State Hearings Division so that a hearing date may be scheduled and a decision rendered on an expedited basis. .25 Prior to each hearing, the county representative shall prepare a typewritten position statement. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 142 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-073 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING (Continued) .251 The position statement shall summarize the facts of the case and set forth the regulatory justification for the county’s action. (a) If the issue concerns the amount of aid, grant adjustment, or a demand for repayment, the county representative shall include in the position statement a complete final budget computation, month by month, for the period in issue. (b) The county shall include as attachments to the position statement copies of documentary evidence and a list of witnesses which the county intends to use during the hearing. (1) The documents shall be itemized on the last page of the position statement and attached as exhibits. .252 If the county has received a 10-day prior notice of the date and time of the scheduled hearing, a copy of the position statement shall be made available to the claimant at the CWD, not less than two working days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE Example: The hearing is scheduled for Friday. Absent any intervening holidays, the position statement shall be available by the opening of business the preceding Wednesday. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .253 If the county, when required, does not make the position statement available at least two working days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing, or if the county modifies the position statement after providing the statement to the claimant, the hearing shall be postponed upon the request of the claimant conditioned upon the waiver of decision deadlines contained in Section 22-060. A modification is defined as a change which substantively revises the position statement. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 143 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-073 22-073 COUNTY WELFARE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE 22-073 STATE HEARING (Continued) .254 A postponement due to the county not making the position statement available within not less than two working days prior to the date of the scheduled hearing or due to the county modifying the position statement after providing the statement to the claimant, shall be considered postponement with good cause. (See Section 22-053.) .26 The county representative shall determine if the presence of the eligibility worker or other county witnesses would be helpful for the resolution of the issue and may have such persons available as witnesses at the hearing. .3 At the hearing, the county representative shall assume full responsibility for presentation of the county’s case. Such presentation shall include: .31 Summarizing the written position statement. .32 Examining county witnesses. .33 Cross- examining the claimant and the claimant’s witnesses. .34 Responding to any questions from the claimant or Administrative Law Judge concerning the case; and .35 Having the county case record available at the hearing. .36 Having the burden of going forward in the hearing to support its determination. .37 Having authority at the hearing to make binding agreements and stipulations on behalf of the CWD. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 144 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-074 STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-074 PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCEDURE 22-074 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-075 DISMISSAL OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING 22-075 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-076 PROCEDURE AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING 22-076 Repealed by Manual Letter No. CFC-07-01, effective 1\/24\/07. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 145 (Next page is Page 148) STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-077 (Cont.) 22-077 HEARING NOT HELD IN COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR AID 22-077 .1 If the hearing is to be held in a county other than the responsible county, the responsible county shall comply with one of the following procedures: .11 Send a county representative, with the case record and the required position statement, to the hearing. .12 Submit a written position statement that meets the requirements of Section 22-073.251. .121 The position statement shall be signed under penalty of perjury and contain a waiver of procedural defects of proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the county representative. .122 The position statement and pertinent documents shall be mailed at least five days prior to the hearing to the claimant, the authorized representative, and to the place of the hearing. .123 If the county in which the hearing is held does not receive the position statement and attachments from the county of responsibility prior to the hearing, it shall contact the responsible county concerning such position statement and shall attend the hearing on the responsible county’s behalf to provide information to the Administrative Law Judge. .13 Send the case record, or a certified copy thereof, containing all relevant information in the county’s possession and the required position statement, to the county in which the claimant is living, with the request that the county represent the responsible county at the hearing. .131 The responsible county shall declare under penalty of perjury that the record submitted is the case record of the claimant. .132 If certified copies of the record are sent instead of the original, the responsible county shall declare under penalty of perjury that the copies are true copies of the original records. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 148 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-077 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-077 HEARING NOT HELD IN COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR AID 22-077 (Continued) .133 The request shall be made in sufficient time to allow the county in which the claimant is living to arrange for representation or to notify the responsible county of its inability to provide such representation. The responsible CWD would then, necessarily follow one of the other two procedures. .2 The responsible county shall be authorized to participate in the hearing by telephone. The responsible county shall still send the position statement to the hearing location as required by Section 22-077.12 or .13 above. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 149 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-078 (Cont.) 22-078 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HEARING DECISIONS 22-078 .1 Immediately upon receipt of a decision of the Director, the county shall initiate action to comply with such decision. .11 The county shall comply with such decision even if a rehearing is requested. .12 The duty to comply continues if the request for rehearing is granted. .13 If a rehearing decision is issued, the county shall comply with that rehearing decision to the extent it differs from the original decision. .2 If the decision of the Director is wholly or partially in favor of the claimant, the county shall, within 30 days of receipt of the decision, submit a compliance report, on a form approved by the Department, to the State Hearings Division. .21 The compliance report shall set forth the specific manner in which the county has complied and\/or is complying with the order in the decision. .22 In the Food Stamp Program, decisions which result in an increase in household benefits shall be implemented according to the provisions of Section 63-804.7. .221 Decisions which result in a decrease in household benefits shall be reflected in the next scheduled issuance following receipt of the hearing decision. .3 The claimant may contact the Department, orally or in writing, if he\/she is dissatisfied with the compliance. .31 There is no right to a state hearing if the request for hearing is based solely on a compliance issue, i.e., an allegation that the county has failed to comply with a previously adopted state hearing decision. In this situation, the substantive issue has already been resolved and the remaining issue is one of enforcement only. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 150 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-078 (Cont.) STATE HEARING – GENERAL Regulations 22-078 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE HEARING DECISIONS 22-078 (Continued) .4 Upon notification that the county has failed to comply with a decision, the Department is authorized to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with such decision, including seeking injunctive relief in Superior Court, as appropriate. .5 The claimant shall be permitted to request a new state hearing concerning his\/her dissatisfaction with compliance related issues. See Section 22-001c.(3). HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .51 See Section 22-009 for the time limit on requesting a hearing. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .52 The time limitations for requesting a state hearing shall not be suspended during the period the Department is reviewing the compliance as specified in Section 22-078.6. .53 The county shall send adequate notice regarding compliance related issues resulting from state hearing decisions. .6 Upon receipt of the compliance report submitted under Section 22-078.2, the Department shall make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the compliance. .61 If it is determined that the compliance is appropriate, a notification shall be sent to the claimant and the county that the compliance has been approved. .62 If it is determined that the compliance is not appropriate, a notice shall be sent to the county with a copy to the claimant, with instructions regarding what steps must be taken to ensure proper compliance with the decision. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553, 10554, 10605, and 10961, Welfare and Institutions Code. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 151 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-085 (Cont.) 22-085 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 22-085 .1 The claimant may authorize a person or organization to represent him\/her during all aspects of the hearing process by signing and dating a written statement to that effect or by stating at the hearing that the person is so authorized. If the claimant is not present at the hearing, the written statement authorizing a representative to act on behalf of the claimant for hearing purposes shall be signed and dated by the claimant on or after the date of the action or inaction with which the claimant is dissatisfied. .11 The authorization may be limited in scope or duration by the claimant, and may be revoked by the claimant at any time. The authorization shall be presumed to be a valid authorization. Such presumption is rebuttable. .12 If the claimant is not present at the hearing and the written authorization does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 22-085.1, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed with the hearing if the circumstances indicate that the claimant wishes to proceed with the hearing process. In such cases, an amended authorization shall be submitted after the hearing as described in Sections 22-085.221 and .222. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .13 The above requirements are for hearing purposes only. For pre-hearing requirements and the release of information to authorized representatives, see Section 19-005. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .2 If the claimant has not authorized the representative in writing and is not present at the hearing, the person may be recognized as the authorized representative as follows: .21 If the person is an attorney as defined in Section 22-001(a)(5), and he\/she states on the hearing record that the claimant is mentally competent and has authorized him\/her to act as authorized representatie regarding the issue(s) to be addressed at the hearing, the attorney shall be recognized as an authorized representative without being required to submit an authorized representative form. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 152 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations STATE HEARING – GENERAL 22-085 22-085 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 22-085 (Continued) .22 If the person is not an attorney, and he\/she swears, affirms or states under penalty of perjury that the claimant is mentally competent and has authorized him\/her to act as the claimant’s authorized representative, and the Administrative Law Judge determines the person is so authorized, the non-attorney may represent the claimant at the hearing, subject to the following: .221 A written authorization shall be submitted by the non-attorney within ten days of the hearing unless this time period is extended by the Administrative Law Judge. .222 If no written authorization is submitted, the case shall be dismissed by written decision. .23 If, at the hearing, the person cannot swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the claimant has authorized him\/her to act as the claimant’s authorized representative because the claimant is incompetent, in a comatose condition, suffering from amnesia or a similar condition, the hearing may proceed at the Administrative Law Judge’s discretion if the person is a relative, or a person who has knowledge of the claimant’s circumstances and who completed and signed the Statement of Facts on the claimant’s behalf. .24 If the attorney or non-attorney does not state on the hearing record that the claimant is mentally competent and has authorized him\/her to act as authorized representative, the attorney or non- attorney shall not be recognized as authorized representative, the hearing shall not proceed and the hearing request shall be dismissed by written decision unless Section 22-085.23 applies. .3 Whenever the claimant is represented by an authorized representative, the authorized representative shall be furnished a copy of all notices and decisions concerning the state hearing which are provided to the claimant. .4 After a person or organization has been authorized to represent the claimant, the county, after notification of the authorization, shall send copies of any subsequent notices and correspondence that it has with the claimant regarding the state hearing, to the claimant and the authorized representative simultaneously. .41 The county’s duty under Section 22-085.4 shall include the requirement to send the authorized representative any notices and\/or correspondence related to a conditional withdrawal or compliance with a state hearing decision. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections10553, 10554, 10950, and 10955, Welfare and Institutions Code and 45 CFR 205.10. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-07-01 Effective 1\/24\/07 Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank. ”

” CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] GJ 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #1 Hearing Week 12\/14\/2020 01\/11\/2021 02\/08\/2021 03\/08\/2021 04\/05\/2021 05\/03\/2021 05\/31\/2021 06\/28\/2021 07\/26\/2021 08\/23\/2021 09\/20\/2021 10\/18\/2021 11\/15\/2021 12\/13\/2021 01\/10\/2022 02\/07\/2022 03\/07\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alpine (02) Mono (26) Sierra (46) Calaveras (05) Nevada (29) Solano (48) Del Norte (08) Riverside* (33) Sonoma (49) Fresno* (10) San Bernardino* (36) Sutter (51) Inyo (14) San Francisco (38) Trinity (53) Los Angeles* (19) San Luis Obispo* (40) Tuolumne (55) Marin (21) San Mateo (41) Yolo (57) Mendocino (23) Santa Barbara (42) Scopes (62) Modoc (25) Shasta (45) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] GJ 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #2 Hearing Week 12\/21\/2020 01\/18\/2021 02\/15\/2021 03\/15\/2021 04\/12\/2021 05\/10\/2021 06\/07\/2021 07\/05\/2021 08\/02\/2021 08\/30\/2021 09\/27\/2021 10\/25\/2021 11\/22\/2021 12\/20\/2021 01\/17\/2022 02\/14\/2022 03\/14\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Humboldt (12) San Diego* (37) Kern* (15) Santa Clara (43) Los Angeles* (19) Ventura (56) Sacramento (34) Scopes (62) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] GJ 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #3 Hearing Week 12\/28\/2020 01\/25\/2021 02\/22\/2021 03\/22\/2021 04\/19\/2021 05\/17\/2021 06\/14\/2021 07\/12\/2021 08\/09\/2021 09\/06\/2021 10\/04\/2021 11\/01\/2021 11\/29\/2021 12\/27\/2021 01\/24\/2022 02\/21\/2022 03\/21\/2022 04\/18\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alameda (01) San Bernardino* (36) Butte (04) San Luis Obispo* (40) Fresno* (10) Santa Cruz (44) Imperial (13) Yuba (58) Los Angeles* (19) Scopes (62) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] GJ 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #4 Hearing Week 12\/07\/2020 01\/04\/2021 02\/01\/2021 03\/01\/2021 03\/29\/2021 04\/26\/2021 05\/24\/2021 06\/21\/2021 07\/19\/2021 08\/16\/2021 09\/13\/2021 10\/11\/2021 11\/08\/2021 12\/06\/2021 01\/03\/2022 01\/31\/2022 02\/28\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Amador (03) Lassen (18) Plumas (23) Colusa (06) Los Angeles* (19) San Benito (35) Contra Costa (07) Madera (20) San Diego* (37) El Dorado (09) Mariposa (22) San Joaquin (39) Glenn (11) Merced (24) Siskiyou (47) Kern* (15) Monterey (27) Stanislaus (50) Kings (16) Napa (28) Tehama (52) Lake (17) Orange (30) Tulare (54) Placer (31) Scopes (62) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] IHSS 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #1 Hearing Week 12\/14\/2020 01\/11\/2021 02\/08\/2021 03\/08\/2021 04\/05\/2021 05\/03\/2021 05\/31\/2021 06\/28\/2021 07\/26\/2021 08\/23\/2021 09\/20\/2021 10\/18\/2021 11\/15\/2021 12\/13\/2021 01\/10\/2022 02\/07\/2022 03\/07\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alpine (02) Mendocino (23) Santa Barbara (42) Calaveras (05) Modoc (25) Shasta (45) Contra Costa (07) Mono (26) Sierra (46) Del Norte (08) Nevada (29) Sonoma (49) Fresno* (10) San Bernardino (36) Sutter (51) Inyo (14) San Diego* (37) Trinity (53) Los Angeles* (19) San Francisco (38) Tuolumne (55) Marin (21) San Mateo (41) Yolo (57) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] IHSS 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #2 Hearing Week 12\/21\/2020 01\/18\/2021 02\/15\/2021 03\/15\/2021 04\/12\/2021 05\/10\/2021 06\/07\/2021 07\/05\/2021 08\/02\/2021 08\/30\/2021 09\/27\/2021 10\/25\/2021 11\/22\/2021 12\/20\/2021 01\/17\/2022 02\/14\/2022 03\/14\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Humboldt (12) San Joaquin (39) Kern* (15) San Luis Obispo (40) Los Angeles* (19) Santa Clara (43) Solano (48) Monterey (27) Tulare (54) San Diego* (37) Ventura (56) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] IHSS 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #3 Hearing Week 12\/28\/2020 01\/25\/2021 02\/22\/2021 03\/22\/2021 04\/19\/2021 05\/17\/2021 06\/14\/2021 07\/12\/2021 08\/09\/2021 09\/06\/2021 10\/04\/2021 11\/01\/2021 11\/29\/2021 12\/27\/2021 01\/24\/2022 02\/21\/2022 03\/21\/2022 04\/18\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alameda (01) Riverside (33) Butte (04) Sacramento (34) Fresno* (10) Santa Cruz (44) Imperial (13) San Diego* (37) Los Angeles* (19) Yuba (58) *County scheduled more than once a month CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to [email protected] IHSS 2021 SCHEDULE WEEK #4 Hearing Week 12\/07\/2020 01\/04\/2021 02\/01\/2021 03\/01\/2021 03\/29\/2021 04\/26\/2021 05\/24\/2021 06\/21\/2021 07\/19\/2021 08\/16\/2021 09\/13\/2021 10\/11\/2021 11\/08\/2021 12\/06\/2021 01\/03\/2022 01\/31\/2022 02\/28\/2022 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Amador (03) Lassen (18) Placer (31) Colusa (06) Los Angeles* (19) Plumas (23) El Dorado (09) Madera (20) San Benito (35) Glenn (11) Mariposa (22) San Diego* (37) Kern* (15) Merced (24) Siskiyou (47) Kings (16) Napa (28) Stanislaus (50) Lake (17) Orange (30) Tehama (52) *County scheduled more than once a month ”

” County Roster Page 1 Alameda County Social Services Agency 7751 Edgewater Dr. Oakland CA 94621 (510) 777-2699 (510) 383-8777 Delia Duran-Zertuche\/Tano Gallegos 2000 San Pablo Avenue, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: (510) 383-8762 – Tano Gallegos – Supervisor [email protected] (510) 383-8763 – Delia Duran-Zertuche – Supervisor [email protected] (510) 383-8797 – Janet Santiago-(Hrg Req. A-L) (510) 383-8798 – Alice Wong-(Hrg Req. M-Z) (510) 383-8701 – Claudia Williams – Sup. Clerk (510) 622-4000 – Hearing location phone (510) 622-4004 – Hearing location FAX 1 Alpine County Alpine County Health & Human Services Agency Department of Social Services 75-A Diamond Valley Road Markleeville CA 96120 (530) 694-2252 (530) 694-2235 Regina Britschgi 75-A Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Stacy Olson, Deputy Director (530) 694-2235 x230 [email protected] Regina Britschgi – (530) 694-2235 Lucie Valorosi, Integrated Caseworker (530) 694-2235 Ext 231 [email protected] 2 Amador County Amador County Department of Social Services 10877 Conductor Blvd. Sutter Creek CA 95685 (209) 257-0242 (209) 223-6550 Jackie Steele 10877 Conductor Blvd. Sutter Creek, Ca 95685 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: [email protected] Debbie Fuller 209-223-6550 x815 3 Butte County Butte County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 1649 Oroville CA 95965 (530) 534-5745 (530) 538-5127 Jeni Casaulong 202 Mira Loma Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Jeni Casaulong (530) 538-5127 [email protected] 4 Calaveras County Calaveras Works and Human Services Agency 509 E. St. Charles St. San Andreas CA 95249 (209) 754-4536 (209) 754-6444 Michele Kelly 509 E. St. Charles St. San Andreas, CA 95249 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Michele Kelly (209) 754-6811 -Appeals Supv [email protected] Sydney Prest (209) 754-6549 -Backup Supv [email protected] ***DIRECTIONS: Enter back of building, corner of Hwy 49 and Mountain Ranch Road*** 5 Colusa County County of Colusa Department of Social Welfare 251 East Webster Street Colusa CA 95932 (530) 458-0492 (530) 458-0250 Alexandra Elguez 251 East Webster Street Colusa, CA 95932 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Alexandra Elguez (530) 458-0262 [email protected] Stefanie Schantz – Hearing Rep. (530) 458-0263 -Primary Susan Walsh – Hearing Rep. (530) 458-0868 – Backup 6 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 2 Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services 400 Ellinwood Way Pleasant Hill CA 94523-7785 (925) 677-2915 (925) 677-2900 Yrma Z. Villarreal 400 Ellinwood Way Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-7785 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Yrma Z. Villarreal – (925) 677-2910 [email protected] (925) 677-2900 – Gris [email protected] Region 01: (510) 231-8408 – (Richmond) (510) 231-8416 – (Richmond) (510) 231-8431 – Richmond Hearing Room (510) 231-8451 – Richmond fax 7 Other hearing location: 1275 A Hall Ave. Richmond, CA 94804 DAPD – South 3580 Wilshire BV, Ste. 500 Los Angeles CA 90010 800-869-0188 (213) 480-6300 Linda Hirai Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Del Norte County Del Norte County Department of Health and Social Services 880 Northcrest Drive Crescent City CA 95531 (707) 464-1783 (707) 464-3191 VeAnn Toreson 880 Northcrest Drive Crescent City, CA 95531 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: VeAnn Toreson (707) 464-3191 ext. 246 [email protected] Caren Ratnour (707) 464-3191 Ext 335 [email protected] Rebecca Green, Hearing Representative (707) 464-3191 Ext 344 [email protected] 8 El Dorado County El Dorado County Department of Human Services 3057 Briw Road Placerville, CA 95667 CA 95667 (530) 626-9060 (530) 642-7250 Kathleen Edwards 3057 Briw Road Placerville, CA 95667 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Kathleen Edwards, Eligibility Supervisor (530) 6427131 [email protected] Debra Serchia, Fair Hearings Officer (530)642-7257 [email protected] (530) 642-7250 Investigations Unit 9 Fresno County Fresno County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 1912 Fresno CA 93750 (559) 453-3845 (559) 453-3825 Joe Xiong 4499 E. Kings Canyon Road Fresno, CA 93702 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Joe Xiong, KBAA (559) 453-8560 [email protected] Calendar Clerk: Sharon Morris (559) 453-3825 Appeals Main Line: Sue Vang (559) 453-6212 10 Glenn County Glenn County Human Resources Agency P.O. Box 611 Willows CA 95988 (530) 934-6909 (530) 934-6518 Ernest Peters 420 East Laurel Willows, CA 95988 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Ernest Peters (530) 934-1419 [email protected] Lawrence Smith [email protected] (530) 934-6518 11 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 3 Humboldt County Humboldt County Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. 929 Koster Eureka CA 95501 (707) 268-3496 (707) 269-4142 Bill Morrow 929 Koster Street Eureka Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Bill Morrow (707) 269-4142 [email protected] 12 Imperial County Imperial County Department of Social Services 2995 South 4th Street, Ste. 105 El Centro CA 92243 (760) 336-3182 (760) 337-6800 Javier De Anda 2995 South 4th Street, Ste. 105 El Centro, CA 92243 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Javier De Anda , Program Manager (760) 337-7422 [email protected] Devin Anderson, Senior Staff Service Analyst (760) 482-2735 [email protected] Hanna Minor, Deputy Director [email protected] Cindy Perdomo, Analyst (760) 337-6861 [email protected] Milissa Castillo, Hearings Clerk (760) 336-3192 13 Inyo County Inyo County Dept of Health and Human Services 920 N. Main Street Bishop CA 93514 (760) 872-4950 (760) 872-1394 Bonnie Brown 00: 920 N. Main Street Bishop, CA 93514 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Bonnie Brown (760) 872-0905 [email protected] Region 01: (760) 876-5545 Fax – (760) 876-5127 14 Other hearing location: 01: 380 Mt. Whitney Drive Lone Pine, CA 93545 Kern County Department of Human Services P.O. Box 1261 Bakersfield CA 93302 (661) 631-6370 (661) 631-6015 Antanette Jones 100 East California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93307 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Antanette Jones (661) 661 – 6770 e-mail: [email protected] Christina Hernandez, OST -Unit Clerk (661) 631-6625 FAX(661) 631-6270 [email protected] Social Services Reception (661) 631-6422 Hearing Room A (661) 631-6597 Hearing Room B (661) 633-7312 Ralph Escamilla – Appeals Rep (661) 633-7013 Grace Conklin – Appeals Rep (661) 633-7241 Wendy Serda – Appeals Rep (661) 633-7031 Alene Ellison – Appeals Rep (661) 633-7086 Juan Guevara – IHSS Appeals Rep (661) 868-1090 15 Kings County Kings County Human Services Agency 1400 W. Lacey Blvd. #8 Hanford CA 93230 (559) 584-2749 (559) 582-3241 Lupe Villa 1400 W. Lacy Blvd. #8 Hanford, CA 93230 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Terri Elliott, Hearing Officer (559) 582-3241 Ext 2255 [email protected] Lupe Villa, Supervisor (559) 582-3241 Ext. 4898 [email protected] 16 Lake County Lake County Department of Social Services PO Box 9000 Lower Lake CA 95457 (707) 995-4253 (707) 995-4278 John Geib 15975 Anderson Ranch Parkway Lower Lake Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Rachel Jorgenson-Program Support (707) 995-4364 [email protected] John Geib (707) 995-4231 [email protected] Sandy Davis (707) 995-4218 [email protected] Linda Anido – Hearings clerk (707) 995-4278 Alternate fax: (707) 995-4204 17 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 4 Lassen County Lassen WORKs & Community Social Services P.O. Box 1359 Susanville CA 96130 (530) 251-8370 (530) 251-8152 Loel Griffith & Yvonne Hawkes 720 Richmond Road Susanville, CA 96130 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Devin Morrow (530) 251-2619 [email protected] Loel Griffith, ICW Supervisor (530) 251-8004 [email protected] Yvonne Hawkes, ICW Supervisor (530) 251-8165 [email protected] 18 Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Social Svcs. 3833 S. Vermont Ave. 4th floor Los Angeles CA 90037 323-730-5892 (323) 730-6554 Diectrich Tucker 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1118 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Hearing Site Phone: (213) 833-2270 Hearing Site Fax: (213) 833-2215 Diectrich Tucker: (323) 730-6554 [email protected] Cynthia Schmidt, Director Lupe Luque, Chief (323) 730-6573 Sonya Martin Compliance Supervisor (323) 730-6542 Pamela Gonzales Lead Clerk (323) 730-6538 Sandra Quintero Lead Clerk Appeals and State Hearings P.O.Box 18890 Los Angeles, CA 90018 19 Los Angeles DCFS Department of Children and Family Services 9320 Telstar Ave. Ste. 216 El Monte CA 91731 (626) 572-2374 (626) 569-6837 Sandra Luscombe 811 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1118 Los Angeles Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Walter Kiang, Section Head (626) 569-6803 [email protected] Sandra Luscombe, Supervisor (626) 569-6833 [email protected] Lisa Medina, Hearings Representative 626) 569-6834 [email protected] Detris Bush, Hearing Representative (626) 569-6817 [email protected] Reba Leyva, Hearing Representative (626) 569-6839 [email protected] Meri Spitzer, Hearing Representative (626) 569-6835 [email protected] Margarita Coco, Hearing Representative (626) 569-6869 [email protected] Jamie Yu, Clerk (626) 569-6838 Kim Do, Clerk (626) 569-6837 19 Madera County Madera County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 569 Madera CA 93639 (559) 675-7690 (559) 675-2444 Carmen Noval-Martinez 720 East Yosemite Avenue Madera, CA 93638 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Carmen Noval-Martinez (559) 675-2444 [email protected] fax (559) 675-7690 Alice Ramirez (559) 675-2413 [email protected] 20 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 5 Marin County Marin County Department of Health and Human Services PO Box 4160 San Rafael CA 94913 (415) 473-3553 (415) 473-3460 Gail Rouchdy 120 N. Redwood Dr., West Wing, 1st floor San Rafael Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Gail Rouchdy (415) 473-3544 [email protected] Debbie Shurtz – Clerical Support (415) 473-3511 [email protected] 21 Mariposa County Mariposa Department of Human Services P.O. Box 99 Mariposa CA 95338 (209) 966-5943 (209) 966-3609 Debbie Smith 5200 Highway 49 North Mariposa, CA 95338 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Debbie Smith (209) 966-3609 [email protected] 22 Mendocino County Mendocino County Health & Human Services P.O. Box 8508 Ukiah CA 95482 (707) 467-5802 (707) 467-5850 Carol Roehl 747 South State Street Ukiah Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Carol Roehl (707) 467-5850 [email protected] Marjorie Mullan (707) 463-7852 [email protected] Hugh Scaramella (707) 962-1066 [email protected] (Fort Bragg office) 23 Merced County Merced County Human Services Agency P.O. Box 112 Merced CA 95341-0112 (209) 354-2507 (209) 385-3000 Sylvia Laguna 2115 Wardrobe Ave Merced, CA 95341 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Sylvia Laguna (209) 385-3000 Ext. 5315 [email protected] Alt. fax (209) 725-3583 Complaints line (209) 385-3000 x5609 24 Modoc County Modoc County Department of Social Services 120 North Main Alturas, CA 96101 CA 96101 (530) 233-2136 (530) 233-6505 Pat Nwobodo 120 North Main Alturas, CA 96101 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Pat Nwobodo (530) 233-6505 [email protected] 25 Mono County Mono County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 2969 Mammoth Lakes CA 93546 (760) 924-5431 (760) 932-5600 Ed Zylman 01: 85 Emigrant Street Bridgeport, CA 93517 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Kathy Watkins (760) 924-1793 [email protected] Ed Zylman (760) 932-5604 [email protected] Region 00: (760) 924-1793 Fax (760) 924-5431 26 Other hearing location: 00: 452 Old Mammoth Road, Third Floor Mammoth Lake, CA 93546 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 6 Monterey County Monterey County Department of Social Services 1000 South Main Street, 208 Salinas CA 93901 (831) 755-8408 (831) 755-4400 Maria Pacheco 1000 South Main Street, 208 Salinas Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Maria Pacheco (831) 755-4477 [email protected] Patricia Orta (831) 755-4416 [email protected] Noel Salas 831-755-4853 [email protected] 27 Napa County Napa County Health and Human Services Agency 2261 Elm St., Bldg A Napa CA 94559 (707) 259-8606 (707) 259-8342 Gail Forte 2344 Old Sonoma Road, Bldg. A Napa, CA 94559 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Gail (McDonau) Forte (707) 259-8695 [email protected] June Paul – Clerical (707) 259-8342 [email protected] 28 Nevada County Nevada County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 1210 Nevada City CA 95959 (530) 265-9860 (530) 265-1644 Cynthia Bryan 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Cynthia Bryan, Program Manager (530) 265-7101 [email protected] Paula DeGiorgis (530) 265-1644 [email protected] Sara Connor (530) 265-7195 [email protected] 29 Orange County Orange County Social Service Agency P.O. Box 22001 Santa Ana CA 92702-2001 (714) 628-8686 (714) 628-8671 Rene Leclair, James Tapia 401 S Tustin Ave Orange, CA 92866 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Rene Leclair (714) 628-8671 [email protected] James Tapia (714) 628-8672 [email protected] Saray Corte (714) 628-8670 Appeals Clerk 30 Placer County Placer County Dept. of Health & Human Services 1000 Sunset Blvd. Suite 220 Rocklin CA 95765-3702 (916) 784-6100 (916) 784-6000 Denise Vasquez 1000 Sunset Blvd. Suite 220 Rocklin, CA 95765-3702 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Denise Vasquez, Supervisor (916) 784-6049 [email protected] Chelo Braton, Hearings Clerk (916) 784-6112 Susan Kimbley, Hearings Supersivor (530) 889-7672 [email protected] Dee Parks, MN Hearings (916) 784-6091 [email protected] Cinday Harmon, CW & FS Hearings (916) 784-6149 [email protected] 31 Plumas County Plumas County Department of Social Services 270 County Hospital Rd. #270 Quincy CA 95971 (530) 283-6368 (530) 283-6053 Neal Caiazzo 270 County Hospital Road, Unit 270 Quincy, CA 95971 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Neal Caiazzo (530) 283-6276 [email protected] Jennifer Hall (530) 283-6053 [email protected] 32 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 7 Riverside County Riverside County Department of Public Social Services 3950 Reynolds Road Riverside CA 92503 (951) 358-7075 (951) 358-3222 Mayra Espinoza, Jean Eiselein 3950 Reynolds Road Riverside, CA 92503 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: (951) 358-3256 Jean Eiselein [email protected] (951) 358-3244 Mayra Espinoza [email protected] (951) 358-3316 Kathy Evett Office Support Supervisor [email protected] (951) 358-3362 Antonia Layne, Office Assistant III [email protected] Amanda Flores – Office Assistant ll (951) 358-3222, [email protected] 33 Sacramento County Dept of Human Assistance, Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 487 GH00 Sacramento, CA 95812-0487 (916) 874-3253 (916) 874-3220 Jean Alford 2007 19th Street Sacramento, CA 95818 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: General e-mail [email protected] (916) 874-3222 Dawn Hansen – Clerical Supervisor Jean Alford, Mgr. – (916) 874-3212 [email protected] ———————————– IHSS Manager – Guy Howard Klopp (916) 874-2695 [email protected] IHSS fax (916) 874-2753 34 San Benito County San Benito County Human Services Agency 1111 San Felipe Road, Room 206 Hollister, CA 95023 (831) 637-9754 (831) 636-4180 Patricia Estrada 1111 San Felipe Road, Room 206 Hollister, CA 95023 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Victoria Fernquist, Fraud Investigator (813) 630-5125 [email protected] Patricia Estrada (831) 636-4180 [email protected] Susan Petree (831) 630-5165 [email protected] Nancy Wirz (831) 630-5127 [email protected] 35 San Bernardino County San Bernardino County Fair Hearing PO Box 1409 San Bernardino CA 92402 (909) 891-3749 (909) 891-3756 Denise Shefchik 606 E. Mill St San Bernardino Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Denise Shefchik (909) 891-3762 [email protected] (909) 891-3740 Darla Stafford [email protected] Anel Casas (909) 891-3801 [email protected] 36 San Diego County San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 4990 Viewridge Avenue, MS W402 San Diego CA 92123-1661 (858) 514-6826 (858) 514-6820 Carmen Lopez 4990 Viewridge Avenue San Diego Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Alma Huerta (858) 514-6821 [email protected] Linda Gregg (858) 514-6923 [email protected] Carmen Lopez (858) 514-6794 [email protected] Sarah Confer (858) 514-6813 [email protected] 37 Other hearing location: 01: 338 Via Vera Cruz, Suite #280 San Marcos, CA. 92078 San Francisco County San Francisco Human Services Agency PO Box 7988, Appeals Unit S600 San Francisco CA 94120 (415) 503-4937 (415) 503-4860 Corlette Balestier, Acting Supervisor 160 South Van Ness San Francisco, CA 94103 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Corlette Balestier [email protected] (415) 503-4861-Daisy Delos Reyes [email protected] Hearing Room No.: 415-557-6330 Hearing location fax: 415-557-6033 38 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 8 San Joaquin County San Joaquin Human Services Agency 333 East Washington Stockton CA 95202 (209) 468-1492 (209) 468-1369 Susan Hansen 333 East Washington Stockton, CA 95202 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Mailing address: P.O. Box 201056 Stockton, CA 95201-3006 Susan Hansen (209) 468-1369 [email protected] Lesa Asher, Senior Office Assistant (209) 468-1417 [email protected] Hearing location No: (209) 468-1420 Hearing location fax: (209) 468-1492 39 San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 8119 San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8119 (805) 781-1944 (805) 781-1889 Debbie Aiello 3433 South Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Debbie Aiello, Division Manager (805) 781-1836 [email protected] Raelene Marking, Appeals (805) 781-1889 PP and WD [email protected] 40 San Mateo County San Mateo County Human Services Agency 262 Harbor Blvd., Bldg. A Belmont CA 94002 (650) 596-3478 (650) 595-7954 Cecilia DeKovic 262 Harbor Blvd., Bldg. A Belmont Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Cecilia DeKovic (650) 802-5192 [email protected] (650) 595-7954 Jashika Kumar – clerk Justin Arndt (FH23) [email protected] (650) 595-7945 Jonathan Gomez (FH24) (650) 802-7985 [email protected] Lynn Harrison (FH25) (650) 802-7948 [email protected],ca.us Paula Guyden (FH26)) (650) 802-7949 [email protected] 41 Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara County Department of Social Services 2125 South Centerpointe Parkway Santa Maria CA 93455 01 – (805) 346-7198, (805) 346-7196 (805) 346-7258 01 – Tony Campas\/00 – Monica Mosqueda 01: 2125 South Centerpointe Parkway Santa Maria, CA 93455 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: 01: Santa Maria – fax – (805) 346-7198, (805) 346-7196 Contact Bea Marroquin (805) 346-7258 Tony Campas – Acting Supv (805) 346-7256 [email protected] 00: Santa Barbara – fax: (805) 681-4618 Supv – Monica Mosqueda (805) 740-1396 [email protected] 42 Other hearing location: 00: 234 Camino Del Remedio Santa Barbara, CA 93110 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 9 Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Social Services Agency 333 W Julian St., 1-1 San Jose CA 95110-2335 (408) 975-4506 (408) 491-6325 Ruth Walker 333 W Julian St., 1-1 San Jose Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Ruth Walker – (408) 491-6329 [email protected] Clerical: (408) 491-6327 – Evelyn Parish (408) 491-6325 – General 43 Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz County Human Services Department P.O. Box 1320 Santa Cruz CA 95061 (831) 454-4869 (831) 454-4117 Joyce Germain 1020 Emeline Avenue, Bldg. B Santa Cruz Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Joyce Germain – (831) 454-4117 [email protected] Esmeralda Alfaro (831) 454-4109 – General 44 Shasta County Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency P.O. Box 496005 Redding CA 96049-6005 (530) 225-5288 (530) 245-6462 Phyllis Trammel 2460 Breslauer Way Redding, CA 96001 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Phyllis Trammel, Supervisor (530) 225-5666 [email protected] Laura Lowney – (530) 225-5785 [email protected] Patricia McQuown – (530) 225-5588 [email protected] Clerical: Katherine Fish (530) 245-6462 [email protected] 45 Sierra County Sierra County Department of Social Services P.O. Box 1019 Loyalton CA 96118 (530) 993-6767 (530) 993-6720 Lori McGee 202 Front Street Loyalton Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Lori McGee (530) 993-6725 [email protected] 46 Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Human Services Department 818 S. Main Street Yreka CA 96097 (530) 841-2791 (530) 841-2700 Dody Virag 818 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Sam Nelson – (530) 841-2767 [email protected] Dody Virag (530) 938-3231 Ext 242 [email protected] 47 Solano County Solano County Health and Social Services P.O. Box 5050 M.S. 2-200 Fairfield, CA 94533 CA 94533 (707) 421-7292 Alternate Fax (707) 421-6427 (707) 421-6424 Elizabeth Chavis 1745 Enterprise, Bldg. 2, 2nd floor Fairfield, CA 94533 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Elizabeth Chavis (Supervisor) – (707) 421-6304 [email protected] Gabriela Zapata DF32 (707)421-4767 Don Larson DF33 (707) 421-4047 Appeals Specialist Butch Fermin DF3D (707) 421-6432 Office Assistant [email protected] 48 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 10 Sonoma County Sonoma County Human Services Department PO Box 1539 Santa Rosa CA 95402 (707) 565-2929 (707) 565-2997 Steve Russell 2550 Paulin Drive, 2nd Floor, Maple Room Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Steve Russell (707) 565-2997 [email protected] Cathy Fenton (707) 565-1340 [email protected] Greg Baker (707) 565-1309 [email protected] Clerical: Brenda Mechling(707) 565-2853 [email protected] 49 Stanislaus County Stanislaus County Community Services Agency P.O. Box 42 Modesto CA 95353 (209) 558-2878 (209) 558-2949 Linda Burrows 251 East Hackett Road Modesto, CA 95353 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Linda Burrows – Supv. (209) 558-2949 [email protected] Robin Axton – Unit Clerk (209) 558-2935 [email protected] 50 Sutter County Sutter County Welfare and Social Services P.O. Box 1535 Yuba City CA 95992 (530) 822-7212 (530) 822-7230 Laura Steffens 539 Garden Hwy. #B Yuba City, CA 95993 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Kerrie Vidalez (530) 822-7230 Ext. 219 [email protected] Laura Steffens (530) 822-7230 ext 292 [email protected] Tracy Olvera, Staff Services Analyst ll [email protected] 51 Tehama County Tehama County P.O. Box 1515 Red Bluff CA 96080 (530) 527-5410 (530) 528-4117 Carol Backus 310 South Main Street Red Bluff, CA 96080 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Carol Backus (530) 528-4117 [email protected] 52 Trinity County Trinity County Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 1470 Weaverville CA 96093-1470 (530) 623-1250 (530) 623-8245 Alfred Allen 1 Industrial Way Weaverville, CA 96093 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Alfred Allen (530) 623-8245 [email protected] 53 Tulare County Tulare County Health & Human Services Agency P.O. Box 5059 Visalia CA 93278 (559) 685-4793\/684-4883 (559) 684-4636 Idalia Gonzalez 26644 South Mooney Blvd. #B Visalia, CA 93277 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Lourdes Hernandez – Unit Manager-(559) 684-4603 [email protected] Idalia Gonzalez,Supervisor (559) 684-4636 [email protected] Ignacio Anguiano – Lead-(559) 684-4622 [email protected] Tina Pena (559) 684-4640 [email protected] Lynette Bartlett (559) 684-4639 [email protected] Janine Dailey – Office Assistant (559) 684-4637 [email protected] Alternate FAX – (559) 684-4883 54 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] County Roster Page 11 Tuolumne County Tuolumne Department of Social Services 20075 Cedar Road North Sonora CA 95370 (209) 533-5714 (209) 533-5711 Rebecca Espino 20075 Cedar Road North Sonora Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Rebecca Espino (209) 533-5746 [email protected] Kathleen Olson (209-) 533-7309 [email protected] 55 Ventura County Ventura County Human Services Agency 855 Partridge Drive Ventura CA 93003 [805] 477-5191 (805) 477-5171 Cynthia Davis 855 Partridge Drive Ventura, CA 93003 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Don Aguirre (805) 477-5166 Manager [email protected] Cynthia Davis [805] 477-5172 -Supv [email protected] 56 Yolo County Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services 25 N. Cottonwood Street Woodland CA 95695 (530) 661-2658 (530) 661-2786 Roberta Paul 00: 25 N. Cottonwood Street Woodland, CA 95695 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Monica Sanchez (530)661-2785 [email protected] Div. Mgr.:Roberta Paul (530) 661-2737 Chris Rhyne, Hearing Representative (530) 661-2786 [email protected] 57 Yuba County Yuba County Health & Human Services Department P.O. Box 2320 Marysville CA 95901 (530) 749-6424 (530) 749-6380 Jennifer Vasquez 5730 Packard Ave. Ste. 100 Marysville, CA 95901 Fax: Telephone: Supervisor: Hearing Address: Jennifer Vasquez (530) 749-6380 [email protected] Krista Trimble, Hearings Rep (530) 749-6474 [email protected] 58 28-Jan-10Please report changes to [email protected] ”

” Effective:[See Text Amendments] Code of Federal Regulations Currentness Title 7. Agriculture Subtitle B. Regulations of the Department of Agriculture Chapter II. Food and Nutrition Service, De- partment of Agriculture (Refs & Annos) Subchapter C. Food Stamp and Food Distribution Program (Refs & Annos) Part 273. Certification of Eligible Households (Refs & Annos) 273.15 Fair hearings. (a) Availability of hearings. Except as provided in 271.7(f), each State agency shall provide a fair hearing to any household aggrieved by any action of the State agency which affects the participation of the household in the Program. (b) Hearing system. Each State agency shall provide for either a fair hearing at the State level or for a hearing at the local level which permits the household to further appeal a local decision to a State level fair hearing. State agencies may adopt local level hearings in some project areas and main- tain only State level hearings in other project areas. (c) Timely action on hearings– (1) State level hearings. Within 60 days of re- ceipt of a request for a fair hearing, the State agency shall assure that the hearing is conduc- ted, a decision is reached, and the household and local agency are notified of the decision. Decisions which result in an increase in house- hold benefits shall be reflected in the coupon allotment within 10 days of the receipt of the hearing decision even if the State agency must provide a supplementary ATP or otherwise provide the household with an opportunity to obtain the allotment outside of the normal issu- ance cycle. However, the State agency may take longer than 10 days if it elects to make the decision effective in the household’s normal is- suance cycle, provided that the issuance will occur within 60 days from the household’s re- quest for the hearing. Decisions which result in a decrease in household benefits shall be re- flected in the next scheduled issuance follow- ing receipt of the hearing decision. (2) Local level hearings. Within 45 days of re- ceipt of a request for a fair hearing, the State agency shall assure that the hearing is conduc- ted, and that a decision is reached and reflected in the coupon allotment. (3) Appeals of local level decisions. Within 45 days of receipt of any request for a State level review of a decision or for a new State level hearing, the State agency shall assure that the review or the new hearing is conducted, and that a decision is reached and reflected in the coupon allotment. (4) Household requests for postponement. The household may request and is entitled to re- ceive a postponement of the scheduled hearing. The postponement shall not exceed 30 days and the time limit for action on the decision may be extended for as many days as the hearing is postponed. For example, if a State level hear- ing is postponed by the household for 10 days, notification of the hearing decision will be re- quired within 70 days from the date of the re- quest for a hearing. 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 1 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&DocName=PRT+++++++++%28+++++++++010306319+++++++++%29+%25+CI%28REFS+%28DISP+%2F2+TABLE%29+%28MISC+%2F2+TABLE%29%29++++++++&FindType=l&JL=2&SR=SB http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&DocName=PRT+++++++++%28+++++++++010301226+++++++++%29+%25+CI%28REFS+%28DISP+%2F2+TABLE%29+%28MISC+%2F2+TABLE%29%29++++++++&FindType=l&JL=2&SR=SB http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS271.7&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=ae0d0000c5150 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS271.7&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=ae0d0000c5150 (d) Agency conferences. (1) The State agency shall offer agency confer- ences to households which wish to contest a denial of expedited service under the proced- ures in 273.2(i). The State agency may also offer agency conferences to households ad- versely affected by an agency action. The State agency shall advise households that use of an agency conference is optional and that it shall in no way delay or replace the fair hearing pro- cess. The agency conferences may be attended by the eligibility worker responsible for the agency action, and shall be attended by an eli- gibility supervisor and\/or the agency director, and by the household and\/or its representative. An agency conference may lead to an informal resolution of the dispute. However, a fair hear- ing must still be held unless the household makes a written withdrawal of its request for a hearing. (2) An agency conference for households con- testing a denial of expedited service shall be scheduled within 2 working days, unless the household requests that it be scheduled later or states that it does not wish to have an agency conference. (e) Consolidated hearings. State agencies may re- spond to a series of individual requests for hearings by conducting a single group hearing. State agen- cies may consolidate only cases where individual issues of fact are not disputed and where related is- sues of State and\/or Federal law, regulation or policy are the sole issues being raised. In all group hearings, the regulations governing individual hear- ings must be followed. Each individual household shall be permitted to present its own case or have its case presented by a representative. (f) Notification of right to request hearing. At the time of application, each household shall be in- formed in writing of its right to a hearing, of the method by which a hearing may be requested, and that its case may be presented by a household mem- ber or a representative, such as a legal counsel, a relative, a friend or other spokesperson. In addition, at any time the household expresses to the State agency that it disagrees with a State agency action, it shall be reminded of the right to request a fair hearing. If there is an individual or organization available that provides free legal representation, the household shall also be informed of the availability of that service. (g) Time period for requesting hearing. A house- hold shall be allowed to request a hearing on any action by the State agency or loss of benefits which occurred in the prior 90 days. Action by the State agency shall include a denial of a request for restor- ation of any benefits lost more than 90 days but less than a year prior to the request. In addition, at any time within a certification period a household may request a fair hearing to dispute its current level of benefits. (h) Request for hearing. A request for a hearing is defined as a clear expression, oral or written, by the household or its representative to the effect that it wishes to appeal a decision or that an opportunity to present its case to a higher authority is desired. If it is unclear from the household’s request what ac- tion it wishes to appeal, the State agency may re- quest the household to clarify its grievance. The freedom to make a request for a hearing shall not be limited or interfered with in any way. (i) State agency responsibilities on hearing re- quests. (1) Upon request, the State agency shall make 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 2 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.2&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=17a3000024864 available without charge the specific materials necessary for a household or its representative to determine whether a hearing should be re- quested or to prepare for a hearing. If the indi- vidual making the request speaks a language other than English and the State agency is re- quired by 272.4(c)(3) to provide bilingual staff or interpreters who speak the appropriate language, the State agency shall insure that the hearing procedures are verbally explained in that language. Upon request, the State agency shall also help a household with its hearing re- quest. If a household makes an oral request for a hearing, the State agency shall complete the procedures necessary to start the hearing pro- cess. Households shall be advised of any legal services available that can provide representa- tion at the hearing. (2) The State agency shall expedite hearing re- quests from households, such as migrant farm- workers, that plan to move from the jurisdic- tion of the hearing official before the hearing decision would normally be reached. Hearing requests from these households shall be pro- cessed faster than others if necessary to enable them to receive a decision and a restoration of benefits if the decision so indicates before they leave the area. (3) The State agency shall publish clearly writ- ten uniform rules of procedure that conform to these regulations and shall make the rules available to any interested party. At a minim- um, the uniform rules of procedure shall in- clude the time limits for hearing requests as specified in paragraph (g) of this section, ad- vance notification requirements as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section, hearing timeli- ness standards as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, and the rights and responsibilities of persons requesting a hearing as specified in paragraph (p) of this section. (j) Denial or dismissal of request for hearing. (1) The State agency must not deny or dismiss a request for a hearing unless: (i) The State agency does not receive the re- quest within the appropriate time frame spe- cified in paragraph (g) of this section, provided that the State agency considers untimely re- quests for hearings as requests for restoration of lost benefits in accordance with 273.17; (ii) The household or its representative fails, without good cause, to appear at the scheduled hearing; (iii) The household or its representative with- draws the request in writing; or (iv) The household or its representative orally withdraws the request and the State agency has elected to allow such oral requests. (2) The State agency electing to accept an oral expression from the household or its represent- ative to withdraw a fair hearing may discuss the option with the household when it appears that the State agency and household have re- solved issues related to the fair hearing. However, the State agency is prohibited from coercion or actions which would influence the household or its representative to withdraw the household’s fair hearing request. The State agency must provide a written notice to the household within 10 days of the household’s re- quest confirming the withdrawal request and providing the household with an opportunity to 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 3 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS272.4&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=4b24000003ba5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.17&FindType=Y request a hearing. The written notice must ad- vise the household it has 10 days from the date it receives the notice to advise the State agency of its desire to request, or reinstate, the hearing. If the household timely advises the State agency that it wishes to reinstate the fair hear- ing, the State agency must provide the house- hold with a fair hearing, within the time frames specified in paragraph (c) of this section and beginning the date the household advises the State agency that it wishes to reinstate its re- quest. The State agency must reinstate a fair hearing as requested from a household at least once. The State agency must not deny a house- hold’s request for a fair hearing if the house- hold is aggrieved by a State agency action that differs from the reinstated action. (k) Continuation of benefits. (1) If a household requests a fair hearing within the period provided by the notice of adverse ac- tion, as set forth in 273.13, and its certifica- tion period has not expired, the household’s participation in the program shall be continued on the basis authorized immediately prior to the notice of adverse action, unless the house- hold specifically waives continuation of bene- fits. The form for requesting a fair hearing shall contain space for the household to indicate whether or not continued benefits are reques- ted. If the form does not positively indicate that the household has waived continuation of bene- fits, the State agency shall assume that continu- ation of benefits is desired and the benefits shall be issued accordingly. If the State agency action is upheld by the hearing decision, a claim against the household shall be estab- lished for all overissuances, with one excep- tion. In the case of an EBT adjustment, as defined in 274.12(f)(4)(ii) of this chapter, once an adverse action is upheld, the State agency shall immediately debit the household’s account for the total amount stated in its origin- al notice. If there are no benefits or insufficient benefits remaining in the household’s account at the time the State agency action is upheld, the State agency may only make the adjustment from the next month’s benefits, regardless of whether this satisfies the full adjustment amount. If a hearing request is not made within the period provided by the notice of adverse ac- tion, benefits shall be reduced or terminated as provided in the notice. However, if the house- hold establishes that its failure to make the re- quest within the advance notice period was for good cause, the State agency shall reinstate the benefits to the prior basis. When benefits are reduced or terminated due to a mass change, participation on the prior basis shall be rein- stated only if the issue being contested is that food stamp eligibility or benefits were improp- erly computed or that Federal law or regulation is being misapplied or misinterpreted by the State agency. (2) Once continued or reinstated, the State agency must not reduce or terminate benefits prior to the receipt of the official hearing de- cision unless: (i) The certification period expires. The house- hold may reapply and may be determined eli- gible for a new certification period with a bene- fit amount as determined by the State agency; (ii) The hearing official makes a preliminary determination, in writing and at the hearing, that the sole issue is one of Federal law or reg- ulation and that the household’s claim that the State agency improperly computed the benefits or misinterpreted or misapplied such law or regulation is invalid; 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 4 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.13&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS274.12&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=a55b000069c46 (iii) A change affecting the household’s eligib- ility or basis of issuance occurs while the hear- ing decision is pending and the household fails to request a hearing after the subsequent notice of adverse action; (iv) A mass change affecting the household’s eligibility or basis of issuance occurs while the hearing decision is pending; or (v) The household, or its representative, orally withdrew its request for a fair hearing and did not advise the State agency of its desire to rein- state the fair hearing within the time frame spe- cified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. (3) The State agency shall promptly inform the household in writing if benefits are reduced or terminated pending the hearing decision. (l) Notification of time and place of hearing. The time, date, and place of the hearing shall be ar- ranged so that the hearing is accessible to the household. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, ad- vance written notice shall be provided to all parties involved to permit adequate preparation of the case. However, the household may request less advance notice to expedite the scheduling of the hearing. The notice shall: (1) Advise the household or its representative of the name, address, and phone number of the person to notify in the event it is not possible for the household to attend the scheduled hear- ing. (2) Specify that the State agency will dismiss the hearing request if the household or its rep- resentative fails to appear for the hearing without good cause. (3) Include the State agency hearing procedures and any other information that would provide the household with an understanding of the proceedings and that would contribute to the effective presentation of the household’s case. (4) Explain that the household or representative may examine the case file prior to the hearing. (m) Hearing official. Hearings shall be conducted by an impartial official(s) who: Does not have any personal stake or involvement in the case; was not directly involved in the initial determination of the action which is being contested; and was not the immediate supervisor of the eligibility worker who took the action. State level hearings shall be con- ducted by State level personnel and shall not be conducted by local level personnel. (1) Designation of hearing official. The hearing official shall be: (i) An employee of the State agency; (ii) An individual under contract with the State agency; (iii) An employee of another public agency designated by the State agency to conduct hear- ings; (iv) A member or official of a statutory board or other legal entity designated by the State agency to conduct hearings; or (v) An executive officer of the State agency, a panel of officials of the State agency or a per- son or persons expressly appointed to conduct State level hearings or to review State and\/or 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 5 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. local level hearing decisions. (2) Power and duties. The hearing official shall: (i) Administer oaths or affirmations if required by the State; (ii) Insure that all relevant issues are con- sidered; (iii) Request, receive and make part of the re- cord all evidence determined necessary to de- cide the issues being raised; (iv) Regulate the conduct and course of the hearing consistent with due process to insure an orderly hearing; (v) Order, where relevant and useful, an inde- pendent medical assessment or professional evaluation from a source mutually satisfactory to the household and the State agency; (vi) Provide a hearing record and recommenda- tion for final decision by the hearing authority; or, if the hearing official is the hearing author- ity, render a hearing decision in the name of the State agency, in accordance with paragraph (q) of this section, which will resolve the dispute. (n) Hearing authority. The hearing authority shall be the person designated to render the final admin- istrative decision in a hearing. The same person may act as both the hearing official and the hearing authority. The hearing authority shall be subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (m) of this section. (o) Attendance at hearing. The hearing shall be at- tended by a representative of the State agency and by the household and\/or its representative. The hearing may also be attended by friends or relatives of the household if the household so chooses. The hearing official shall have the authority to limit the number of persons in attendance at the hearing if space limitations exist. (p) Household rights during hearing. The household may not be familiar with the rules of order and it may be necessary to make particular efforts to ar- rive at the facts of the case in a way that makes the household feel most at ease. The household or its representative must be given adequate opportunity to: (1) Examine all documents and records to be used at the hearing at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing as well as during the hearing. The contents of the case file including the application form and documents of verifica- tion used by the State agency to establish the household’s ineligibility or eligibility and allot- ment shall be made available, provided that confidential information, such as the names of individuals who have disclosed information about the household without its knowledge or the nature or status of pending criminal prosec- utions, is protected from release. If requested by the household or its representative, the State agency shall provide a free copy of the portions of the case file that are relevant to the hearing. Confidential information that is protected from release and other documents or records which the household will not otherwise have an op- portunity to contest or challenge shall not be introduced at the hearing or affect the hearing official’s decision. (2) Present the case or have it presented by a legal counsel or other person. 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 6 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. (3) Bring witnesses. (4) Advance arguments without undue interfer- ence. (5) Question or refute any testimony or evid- ence, including an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. (6) Submit evidence to establish all pertinent facts and circumstances in the case. (q) Hearing decisions. (1) Decisions of the hearing authority shall comply with Federal law and regulations and shall be based on the hearing record. The ver- batim transcript or recording of testimony and exhibits, or an official report containing the substance of what transpired at the hearing, to- gether with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, shall constitute the exclusive re- cord for a final decision by the hearing author- ity. This record shall be retained in accordance with 272.1(f). This record shall also be avail- able to the household or its representative at any reasonable time for copying and inspec- tion. (2) A decision by the hearing authority shall be binding on the State agency and shall summar- ize the facts of the case, specify the reasons for the decision, and identify the supporting evid- ence and the pertinent Federal regulations. The decision shall become a part of the record. (3) The household and the local agency shall each be notified in writing of: The decision; the reasons for the decision in accordance with paragraph (q)(2) of this section; the available appeal rights; and that the household’s benefits will be issued or terminated as decided by the hearing authority. The notice shall also state that an appeal may result in a reversal of the decision. The following are additional notice requirements and the available appeal rights: (i) After a State level hearing decision which upholds the State agency action, the household shall be notified of the right to pursue judicial review of the decision. In addition, in States which provide for rehearings of State level de- cisions, the household shall be notified of the right to pursue a rehearing. (ii) After a local level hearing decision which upholds the State agency action, the household shall be notified of the right to request a com- pletely new State agency level hearing, and that a reversal of the decision may result in the res- toration of lost benefits to the household. In ad- dition, the household shall be advised that if a new hearing would pose an inconvenience to the household, a State level review of the de- cision based on the hearing record may be re- quested instead of a new hearing. A clear de- scription of the two appeal procedures must be included to enable the household to make an informed choice, if it wishes to appeal. If the household indicates that it wishes to appeal, but does not select the method, the State agency shall proceed with a new State level hearing. (4) If the household wishes to appeal a local level hearing decision, the appeal request must be filed within 15 days of the mailing date of the hearing decision notice. Within 45 days of receipt of any request for a State level review of the decision or for a new State level hearing, the State agency shall assure that the review or 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 7 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS272.1&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=ae0d0000c5150 the hearing is conducted, and that a decision is reached and reflected in the coupon allotment. If a new hearing will not be held, the State level hearing official will review the local level hearing record to determine if the local de- cision was supported by substantial evidence. State level review procedures shall provide for notifying the local agency and the household that each may file a summary of arguments which shall become a part of the record if timely received. Both parties shall be advised that failure to file a summary will not be con- sidered in deciding the case and that the sum- mary must be postmarked within 10 days of re- ceipt of the notice. (5) All State agency hearing records and de- cisions shall be available for public inspection and copying, subject to the disclosure safe- guards provided in 272.1(c), and provided identifying names and addresses of household members and other members of the public are kept confidential. (r) Implementation of local level hearing decision. (1) In the event the local hearing decision up- holds the State agency action, any benefits to the household which were continued pending the hearing shall be discontinued beginning with the next scheduled issuance, regardless of whether or not an appeal is filed. Collection ac- tion for any claims against the household for overissuances shall be postponed until the 15-day appeal request period has elapsed, or if an appeal is requested, until the State agency upholds the decision of the local hearing au- thority. (2) In the event the local hearing authority de- cides in favor of the household, benefits to the household shall begin or be reinstated, as re- quired by the decision, within the 45-day time limit allowed for local hearing procedures. Any lost benefits due to the household shall be is- sued as soon as administratively feasible. The State agency shall restore benefits to house- holds which are leaving the project area before the departure whenever possible. If benefits are not restored prior to the household’s departure, the State agency shall forward an authorization to the benefits to the household or to the new project area if this information is known. The new project area shall accept an authorization and issue the appropriate benefits whether the notice is presented by the household or re- ceived directly from another project area. (s) Implementation of final State agency decisions. The State agency is responsible for insuring that all final hearing decisions are reflected in the house- hold’s coupon allotment within the time limits spe- cified in paragraph (c) of this section. (1) When the hearing authority determines that a household has been improperly denied pro- gram benefits or has been issued a lesser allot- ment than was due, lost benefits shall be provided to the household in accordance with 273.17. The State agency shall restore benefits to households which are leaving the project area before the departure whenever possible. If benefits are not restored prior to the house- hold’s departure, the State agency shall forward an authorization to the benefits to the house- hold or to the new project area if this informa- tion is known. The new project area shall ac- cept an authorization and issue the appropriate benefits whether the notice is presented by the household or received directly from another project area. (2) When the hearing authority upholds the 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 8 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS272.1&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=4b24000003ba5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.17&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.17&FindType=Y State agency’s action, a claim against the household for any overissuances shall be pre- pared in accordance with 273.18. (t) Review of appeals of local level decisions. State agencies which adopt a local level hearing system shall establish a procedure for monitoring local level hearing decisions. The number of local level decisions overturned upon appeal to a State level hearing shall be examined. If the number of re- versed decisions is excessive, the State agency shall take corrective action. (u) Departmental review of decisions contrary to Federal law and regulations. [Reserved] [Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47889, Oct. 17, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 132, 44 FR 33385, June 8, 1979; Amdt. 146, 46 FR 1427, Jan. 6, 1981; Amdt. 269, 51 FR 10793, March 28, 1986; Amdt. 356, 59 FR 29713, June 9, 1994; Amdt. 378, 64 FR 48937, Sept. 9, 1999; 65 FR 41325, July 5, 2000; Amdt. 388, 65 FR 70211, Nov. 21, 2000] SOURCE: Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47889, Oct. 17, 1978; 51 FR 10786, March 28, 1986; 51 FR 42994, Nov. 28, 1986; 52 FR 11814, April 13, 1987; 56 FR 12845, March 28, 1991; 58 FR 215, Jan. 5, 1993; Amdt. 373, 64 FR 38293, July 16, 1999, unless oth- erwise noted. AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036. 7 C. F. R. 273.15, 7 CFR 273.15 Current through July 23, 2009; 74 FR 36402 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters END OF DOCUMENT 7 C.F.R. 273.15 Page 9 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.18&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I33ADF3902B-7F11DA8794A-B47DD0CABB0%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IFE68775031-1E11DA8794A-B47DD0CABB0%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IFE68775031-1E11DA8794A-B47DD0CABB0%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I6F44ADC031-4411DAAE9AB-B7EB80F7B3D%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I03E4737030-1911DAB1EA8-A3AF7542D25%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I9BD559A030-9211DA8794A-B47DD0CABB0%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=51FR42994&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=56FR12845&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=56FR12845&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=58FR215&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=7USCAS2011&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=7USCAS2036&FindType=Y ”

” Effective:[See Text Amendments] Code of Federal Regulations Currentness Title 7. Agriculture Subtitle B. Regulations of the Department of Agriculture Chapter II. Food and Nutrition Service, De- partment of Agriculture (Refs & Annos) Subchapter C. Food Stamp and Food Distribution Program (Refs & Annos) Part 273. Certification of Eligible Households (Refs & Annos) 273.13 Notice of adverse action. (a) Use of notice. Prior to any action to reduce or terminate a household’s benefits within the certific- ation period, the State agency shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, provide the household timely and adequate advance notice before the adverse action is taken. (1) The notice of adverse action shall be con- sidered timely if the advance notice period con- forms to that period of time defined by the State agency as an adequate notice period for its public assistance caseload, provided that the period includes at least 10 days from the date the notice is mailed to the date upon which the action becomes effective. Also, if the adverse notice period ends on a weekend or holiday, and a request for a fair hearing and continu- ation of benefits is received the day after the weekend or holiday, the State agency shall con- sider the request timely received. (2) The notice of adverse action shall be con- sidered adequate if it explains in easily under- standable language: The proposed action; the reason for the proposed action; the household’s right to request a fair hearing; the telephone number of the food stamp office (toll-free num- ber or a number where collect calls will be ac- cepted for households outside the local calling area) and, if possible, the name of the person to contact for additional information; the availab- ility of continued benefits; and the liability of the household for any overissuances received while awaiting a fair hearing if the hearing of- ficial’s decision is adverse to the household. If there is an individual or organization available that provides free legal representation, the no- tice shall also advise the household of the availability of the service. (3) The State agency may notify a household that its benefits will be reduced or terminated, no later than the date the household receives, or would have received, its allotment, if the fol- lowing conditions are met: (i) The household reports the information which results in the reduction or termination. (ii) The reported information is in writing and signed by the household. (iii) The State agency can determine the house- hold’s allotment or ineligibility based solely on the information provided by the household as required in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. (iv) The household retains its right to a fair hearing as allowed in 273.15. (v) The household retains its right to continued benefits if the fair hearing is requested within 7 C.F.R. 273.13 Page 1 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&DocName=PRT+++++++++%28+++++++++010306319+++++++++%29+%25+CI%28REFS+%28DISP+%2F2+TABLE%29+%28MISC+%2F2+TABLE%29%29++++++++&FindType=l&JL=2&SR=SB http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&DocName=PRT+++++++++%28+++++++++010301226+++++++++%29+%25+CI%28REFS+%28DISP+%2F2+TABLE%29+%28MISC+%2F2+TABLE%29%29++++++++&FindType=l&JL=2&SR=SB http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=CFR&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.15&FindType=Y the time period set by the State agency in ac- cordance with 273.13(a)(1). (vi) The State agency continues the household’s previous benefit level, if required, within five working days of the household’s request for a fair hearing. (4) The State agency shall notify a household that its benefits will be reduced if an EBT sys- tem-error has occurred during the redemption process resulting in an out-of-balance settle- ment condition. This notification shall be made no later than the date the action is initiated against the household account. The State agency shall adjust the benefit in accordance with 274.12 of this chapter. (b) Exemptions from notice. Individual notices of adverse action shall not be provided when: (1) The State initiates a mass change as de- scribed in 273.12(e). (2) The State agency determines, based on reli- able information, that all members of a house- hold have died. (3) The State agency determines, based on reli- able information, that the household has moved from the project area. (4) The household has been receiving an in- creased allotment to restore lost benefits, the restoration is complete, and the household was previously notified in writing of when the in- creased allotment would terminate. (5) The household’s allotment varies from month to month within the certification period to take into account changes which were anti- cipated at the time of certification, and the household was so notified at the time of certi- fication. (6) The household jointly applied for PA\/GA and food stamp benefits and has been receiving food stamp benefits pending the approval of the PA\/GA grant and was notified at the time of certification that food stamp benefits would be reduced upon approval of the PA\/GA grant. (7) A household member is disqualified for in- tentional Program violation, in accordance with 273.16, or the benefits of the remaining household members are reduced or terminated to reflect the disqualification of that household member. The notice requirements for individu- als or households affected by intentional Pro- gram violation disqualifications are explained in 273.16. (8) The State agency has elected to assign a longer certification period to a household certi- fied on an expedited basis and for whom veri- fication was postponed, provided the household has received written notice that the receipt of benefits beyond the month of application is contingent on its providing the verification which was initially postponed and that the State agency may act on the verified informa- tion without further notice as provided in 273.2(i)(4). (9) The State agency must change the house- hold’s benefits back to the original benefit level as required in 273.12(c)(1)(iii). (10) Converting a household from cash and\/or 7 C.F.R. 273.13 Page 2 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS274.12&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.12&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=7fdd00001ca15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.16&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.16&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.2&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=e4e00000402d1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.2&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=e4e00000402d1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.12&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=6f32000041d46 food stamp coupon repayment to benefit reduc- tion as a result of failure to make agreed upon repayment as discussed in 273.18. (11) The State agency is terminating the eligib- ility of a resident of a drug or alcoholic treat- ment center or a group living arrangement if the facility loses either its certification from the appropriate agency or agencies of the State (as defined in 271.2) or has its status as an au- thorized representative suspended due to FNS disqualifying it as a retailer. However, resid- ents of group living arrangements applying on their own behalf are still eligible to participate. (12) The household voluntarily requests, in writing or in the presence of a caseworker, that its participation be terminated. If the household does not provide a written request, the State agency shall send the household a letter con- firming the voluntary withdrawal. Written con- firmation does not entail the same rights as a notice of adverse action except that the house- hold may request a fair hearing. (13) The State agency determines, based on re- liable information, that the household will not be residing in the project area and, therefore, will be unable to obtain its next allotment. The State agency shall inform the household of its termination no later than its next scheduled is- suance date. While the State agency may in- form the household before its next issuance date, the State agency shall not delay terminat- ing the household’s participation in order to provide advance notice. (14) The State agency initiates recoupment of a claim as specified in 273.18(g)(4) against a household which has previously received a no- tice of adverse action with respect to such claim. (c) Optional notice. The State agency may, at its option, send the household an adequate notice as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section when the household’s address is unknown and mail direc- ted to it has been returned by the post office indic- ating no known forwarding address. [Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47889, Oct. 17, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 132, 44 FR 33385, June 8, 1979; 45 FR 7240, Feb. 1, 1980; 45 FR 23293, Apr. 4, 1980; Amdt. 202, 46 FR 44726, Sept. 4, 1981; Amdt. 235, 47 FR 55910, Dec. 14, 1982; Amdt. 222, 48 FR 6316, Feb. 11, 1983; Amdt. 242, 48 FR 6855, Feb. 15, 1983; 50 FR 48741, Nov. 27, 1985; Amdt. 269, 51 FR 10790, March 28, 1986; Amdt. 316, 54 FR 24530, June 7, 1989; Amdt. 342, 59 FR 2731, Jan. 19, 1994; 59 FR 16096, April 6, 1994; Amdt. 364, 61 FR 54318, Oct. 17, 1996; Amdt. 378, 64 FR 48937, Sept. 9, 1999; 65 FR 41325, Ju- ly 5, 2000] SOURCE: Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47889, Oct. 17, 1978; 51 FR 10786, March 28, 1986; 51 FR 42994, Nov. 28, 1986; 52 FR 11814, April 13, 1987; 56 FR 12845, March 28, 1991; 58 FR 215, Jan. 5, 1993; Amdt. 373, 64 FR 38293, July 16, 1999, unless oth- erwise noted. AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036. 7 C. F. R. 273.13, 7 CFR 273.13 Current through July 23, 2009; 74 FR 36402 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters END OF DOCUMENT 7 C.F.R. 273.13 Page 3 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.18&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS271.2&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.18&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=73a1000032f37 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I1B16BF2026-4711DAA715A-5CD0856D60A%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IADA9494034-7D11DA815BD-679F0D6A697%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IB5D7670034-7D11DAAE9AB-B7EB80F7B3D%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IB5D7670034-7D11DAAE9AB-B7EB80F7B3D%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I7493E3E034-7811DA815BD-679F0D6A697%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I022FB48033-BC11DABAA48-F9C8B1C0930%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IBF2FC61031-1E11DAAECA8-D28B8108CB8%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IBF2FC61031-1E11DAAECA8-D28B8108CB8%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28IB300C41031-1F11DAA715A-5CD0856D60A%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I29B9C0E031-D711DAA76E8-C4D774DCFAA%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I6F44ADC031-4411DAAE9AB-B7EB80F7B3D%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=184736&DocName=UUID%28I03E4737030-1911DAB1EA8-A3AF7542D25%29&FindType=l http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=51FR42994&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=56FR12845&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=56FR12845&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0001037&DocName=58FR215&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=7USCAS2011&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=7USCAS2036&FindType=Y ”

” Expedited State hearing Request Before Department of Social Services I request an expedited State Hearing against the county of The reasons for the hearing is the county action regarding: Program Date Applied CWD Action CalWORK Immediate need Food Stamp Expedited Service Homeless Assistance Other (For other add a page that explains the problem for the hearing) CLAIMANT AND REPRESENATTIVE INFORMATION Claimant Name Last Name SSN Claimant Address Telephone I want the person below to represent me at this hearing: Name of Representative:________________________________________ Organization:_________________________________________________ Address________________________________Telephone_____________ Claimant\/AR signature: _______________________________Date:___________ (NOTE: This only needs to be completed if the claimant does not sign the hearing request.) AUTHRIZED REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have been expressly authorized by the claimant herein to request this state hearing by signing his\/her name hereto and represent him\/her during all steps of the state hearing proceedings. Date:_______________ Place of Execution of this signature:________________. By __________________________________________ Signature of Declarent herein Text3: Text4: Text5: Text6: Text7: Text8: Text9: Text10: Text11: Text12: Text13: Text14: Text16: Text17: Text18: Text19: Text20: Text21: Text22: Check Box23: Off Check Box24: Off Check Box25: Off Check Box26: Off Check Box27: Off Text1: ”

” STATE HEARING REQUEST BEFORE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES County Case Number SSN Name of Claimant Telephone Address City ZIP I, the undersigned hereby request a state hearing before the Department of Social Services against the County of _______________ regarding: Cash Aid Food Stamps Medi-Cal Child Care Overpayment Underpayment CAPI IHSS Homeless Assistance WtW Other AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT I hereby authorize the organization mentioned below and any persons designed by them, including any attorney at law to be my representative in this matter and any other matter, including any State Hearing filed on my behalf by said organization hereafter. This authorization to represent and release is for the purpose of releasing any and all information to said organization or any persons designated by them, including any attorney. I further declare that any withdrawal or conditional withdrawal of this case will be invalid and deemed to have been obtained by the county under duress unless signed by said organization or its representative. I further request that copies of all communication, including oral communications relative to this matter be directed to: REASONS FOR THE REQUEST FOR A STATE HEARING The reasons for my state hearing request is that the county has incorrectly applied (1) the regulations and (2) the facts to my case incorrectly during the past 90 days from the date of this request relative to any actions\/determinations that the county has undertaken in my with or without an a timely and adequate notice of action. AID PAID PENDING I request that aid paid pending be issued on notices of action mailed out to me by the county this month prior to the date that I have filed this request for a state hearing. POSITION STATEMENT I request that a position statement be made available to me two working days prior t the scheduled date of this hearing as required by state law and regulations. Signature of Claimant\/ A.R. Date: DECLARATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A STATE HEARING I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have been expressly authorized by the claimant herein to request this hearing by signing his\/her name thereto and to represent her\/him during all steps of the state hearing proceeding. Executed on _________ in the City of _____________ State of California. By____________________________ INTERPRETER REQUEST I also request an interpreter for the state hearing. The language is: Additional reasons for the state hearing are: (optional) _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Text5: Text6: Text7: Text8: Text9: Text10: Text11: Text12: Text13: Text14: Text15: Text16: County has not performed social services under state regulation and\/or services ordered by Text17: the court with county welfare department discretion. Text18: Check Box22: Off Check Box222: Off Check Box223: Off Check Box221: Off Check Box224: Off Check Box225: Off Check Box226: Off Check 8: Off Check Box9: Off Check Box229: Off Text1: ”

” Supreme Court of the United States Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Social Ser- vices of the City of New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY et al. No. 62. Argued Oct. 13, 1969. Decided March 23, 1970. New York City residents receiving financial aid un- der federally-assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children or under New York State’s general Home Relief program brought suit challenging adequacy of procedures for notice and hearing in connection with termination of such aid. The three-judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 294 F.Supp. 893, entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defend- ant appealed. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Bren- nan, held that procedural due process requires that pretermination evidentiary hearing be held when public assistance payments to welfare recipient are discontinued, and further held that procedures fol- lowed by city of New York in terminating public assistance payments to welfare recipients were con- stitutionally inadequate in failing to permit recipi- ents to appear personally with or without counsel before official who finally determined continued eligibility and failing to permit recipient to present evidence to that official orally or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. Affirmed. Mr. Chief Justice Burger and Mr. Justice Black dis- sented. For dissenting opinions of Mr. Chief Justice Burger and Mr. Justice Stewart see 397 U.S. 282, 285, 90 S.Ct. 1028, 1029. West Headnotes [1] Constitutional Law 92 4115 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4115 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 4.16 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak4.10 Eligibility and Right to Benefits; Termination 356Ak4.16 k. Other Matters. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak4.10, 356Ak2) Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitle- ment for persons qualified to receive them and their termination involves state action that adjudicates important rights, and procedural due process is ap- plicable to termination of welfare benefits. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [2] Constitutional Law 92 2646 92 Constitutional Law 92XXI Vested Rights 92k2646 k. Public Funds and Assistance. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k103) A constitutional challenge to termination of welfare benefits cannot be answered by argument that pub- lic assistance benefits are a privilege rather than a right. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [3] Constitutional Law 92 4115 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 1 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968115544 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970241805&ReferencePosition=1029 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970241805&ReferencePosition=1029 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak4.10 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak4.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak4.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak4.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k2646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k2646 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4115 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Relevant constitutional restraints apply to with- drawal of public assistance benefits. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [4] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Extent to which procedural due process must be af- forded welfare recipient is influenced by extent to which he may be condemned to suffer grievous loss and depends on whether recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs governmental interest in summary adjudication. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [5] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k318(1), 92k318) Some governmental benefits may be administrat- ively terminated without affording recipient a pre- termination evidentiary hearing. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [6] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Procedural due process requires that pretermination evidentiary hearing be held when public assistance payments to welfare recipient are discontinued. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [7] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Governmental interests in conserving fiscal and ad- ministrative resources by stopping payments promptly on discovery of reason to believe that welfare recipient is no longer eligible and by redu- cing number of evidentiary hearings actually held would not be sufficient to justify failure to provide pretermination evidentiary hearing and instead delay evidentiary hearing until after discontinuance of grants. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [8] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 2 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4115 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 Due process does not require two hearings in con- nection with termination of public assistance bene- fits to welfare recipients, and if a state wishes to continue benefits until after a fair hearing there will be no need for a preliminary hearing. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [9] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Hearing prior to termination of public assistance benefits to welfare recipients has only function of producing an initial determination of validity of welfare department’s grounds for discontinuance of payments in order to protect recipient against an er- roneous termination of his benefits. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [10] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Hearing prior to termination of public assistance benefits to welfare recipients need not provide com- plete record and comprehensive opinion that would serve primarily to facilitate judicial review and need not take form of judicial or quasi-judicial trial. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [11] Constitutional Law 92 3879 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3878 Notice and Hearing 92k3879 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.6, 92k305(2), 92k305) Fundamental requisite of due process of law is op- portunity to be heard and hearing must be at mean- ingful time and in meaningful manner. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [12] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Due process would require that welfare recipient on proposed termination of public assistance benefits be given timely and adequate notice detailing reas- ons for proposed termination and an effective op- portunity to defend by confronting any adverse wit- nesses and by presenting his own argument and evidence orally. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [13] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(2) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(2) k. Notice, Hearing and Administrative Review. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.17, 356Ak194) Seven days’ notice provided by New York City on proposed termination of public assistance benefits to recipients of financial aid under federally-as- sisted program of Aid to Families With Dependent Children or under New York State’s general Home Relief program was not constitutionally insufficient 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 3 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28B%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3878 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 per se although there might be cases where fairness would require that longer time be given. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14; Social Security Act, 401-410 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. 601-610; So- cial Services Law N.Y. 157-166, 158, 343-362. [14] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Notice given by city of New York of proposed ter- mination of public assistance payments to welfare recipients by employing both letter and personal conference with caseworker to inform recipient of precise questions raised about his continued eligib- ility satisfied constitutional requirements as to con- tent or form of notice. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14; Social Security Act, 401-410 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. 601-610; Social Services Law N.Y. 157-166, 158, 343-362. [15] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Procedures followed by city of New York in ter- minating public assistance payments to welfare re- cipients were constitutionally inadequate in failing to permit recipients to appear personally with or without counsel before official who finally determ- ined continued eligibility and failing to permit re- cipient to present evidence to that official orally or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. U.S.C.A.Const Amend. 14; Social Security Act, 401-410 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. 601-610; So- cial Services Law N.Y. 157-166, 158, 343-362. [16] Constitutional Law 92 3879 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(B) Protections Provided and Deprivations Prohibited in General 92k3878 Notice and Hearing 92k3879 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k251.6, 92k305(2), 92k305) Due process requirement of opportunity to be heard must be tailored to capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [17] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) It is not enough to satisfy due process that welfare recipient on proposed termination of public assist- ance payments be permitted to present his position to decisionmaker in writing or secondhand through caseworker; instead, recipient must be allowed to state his position orally and be given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses relied on by department. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [18] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 489.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat- ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(D) Hearings and Adjudications 15Ak489 Decision 15Ak489.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 15Ak489) 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 4 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS610&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS166&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS158&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS343&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS362&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS610&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS166&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS158&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS343&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS362&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS610&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS166&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS158&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS343&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS362&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28B%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3878 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k3879 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV%28D%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak489 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak489.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak489.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak489.1 Particularly where credibility and veracity are at is- sue, written submissions of person’s position are wholly unsatisfactory basis for decision. [19] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2), 92k318) Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) On proposed termination of public assistance pay- ments to welfare recipient, recipient must be al- lowed to state his position orally but informal pro- cedures will suffice and due process does not re- quire a particular order of proof or mode of offering evidence. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [20] Constitutional Law 92 4003 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(E) Civil Actions and Proceedings 92k3999 Evidence and Witnesses 92k4003 k. Witnesses; Confrontation and Cross-Examination. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k314) In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [21] Criminal Law 110 662.1 110 Criminal Law 110XX Trial 110XX(C) Reception of Evidence 110k662 Right of Accused to Confront Witnesses 110k662.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 110k662(1)) Witnesses 410 216(1) 410 Witnesses 410II Competency 410II(D) Confidential Relations and Priv- ileged Communications 410k216 Communications to or Informa- tion Acquired by Public Officers 410k216(1) k. In General; Official or Governmental Privilege. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 410k216) It has been a relatively immutable principle that where governmental action seriously injures an in- dividual and reasonableness of that action depends on fact-findings, evidence used to prove govern- ment’s case must be disclosed to individual so that he has opportunity to show that it is untrue. [22] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 476 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat- ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(D) Hearings and Adjudications 15Ak469 Hearing 15Ak476 k. Production and Reception of Evidence in General. Most Cited Cases Rights of confrontation and cross-examination ap- ply not only in criminal cases but also in all types of cases where administrative actions are under scrutiny. [23] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 5 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28E%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k3999 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4003 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4003 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XX http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110XX%28C%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k662 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=110k662.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k662.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=110k662.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=410 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=410II http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=410II%28D%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=410k216 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=410k216%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=410k216%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV%28D%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak469 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak476 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak476 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) At hearing to be provided welfare recipient prior to termination of public assistance benefits, recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so de- sires. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [24] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.15 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.15 k. Determination; Adminis- trative Review. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) Decision maker’s conclusion as to welfare recipi- ent’s eligibility to public assistance payments must rest solely on legal rules and evidence adduced at pretermination hearing and, to demonstrate compli- ance with that requirement, decision maker should state reasons for his determination and indicate evidence he relied on, though his statement need not amount to full opinion or even formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. [25] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 8.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak8 Administrative Proceedings 356Ak8.5 k. Notice and Hearing. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak8) An impartial decision maker is essential in hearing provided welfare recipient prior to termination of public assistance payments and, though prior in- volvement in some aspects of case will not neces- sarily bar welfare official from acting as decision maker, decision maker should not have participated in making determination under review. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. **1013 *255 John J. Loflin, Jr., New York City, for appellant. **1014 Lee A. Albert, New York City, for ap- pellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particu- lar recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in viol- ation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by residents of New *256 York City receiving financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State’s general Home Relief program.FN1Their complaint alleged that the New York State and New York City officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law.FN2At the time *257 the suits were filed there was no requirement of prior notice or hearing of any kind before termination of financial aid. However, the State and city adopted procedures for notice and hearing after the suits were brought, and the plaintiffs, appellees here, then challenged the constitutional adequacy of those procedures. FN1. AFDC was established by the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ss 601-610 (1964 ed. and Supp. IV). It is a categorical assistance program supported by federal grants-in-aid but administered by the States according to regulations of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. See N.Y. Social Welfare Law ss 343-362 (1966). We con- sidered other aspects of AFDC in King v. 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 6 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.15 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak8.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS610&FindType=L Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968), and in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). Home Relief is a general assistance pro- gram financed and administered solely by New York state and local governments. N.Y. Social Welfare Law ss 157-165 (1966), since July 1, 1967, Social Services Law ss 157-166. It assists any person un- able to support himself or to secure support from other sources. Id.,s 158. FN2. Two suits were brought and consolid- ated in the District Court. The named plaintiffs were 20 in number, including in- tervenors. Fourteen had been or were about to be cut off from AFDC, and six from Home Relief. During the course of this lit- igation most, though not all, of the plaintiffs either received a ‘fair hearing’ (see infra, at 1015-1016) or were restored to the rolls without a hearing. However, even in many of the cases where payments have been resumed, the underlying ques- tions of eligibility that resulted in the bringing of this suit have not been re- solved. For example, Mrs. Altagracia Guz- man alleged that she was in danger of los- ing AFDC payments for failure to cooper- ate with the City Department of Social Ser- vices in suing her estranged husband. She contended that the departmental policy re- quiring such cooperation was inapplicable to the facts of her case. The record shows that payments to Mrs. Guzman have not been terminated, but there is no indication that the basic dispute over her duty to co- operate has been resolved, or that the al- leged danger of termination has been re- moved. Home Relief payments to Juan DeJesus were terminated because he re- fused to accept counseling and rehabilita- tion for drug addiction. Mr. DeJesus main- tains that he does not use drugs. His pay- ments were restored the day after his com- plaint was filed. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that the underlying fac- tual dispute in his case has been settled. The State Commissioner of Social Services amended the State Department of Social Services’ Official Regulations to require that local social ser- vices officials proposing to discontinue or suspend a recipient’s financial aid do so according to a pro- cedure that conforms to either subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of s 351.26 of the regulations as amended.FN3The City of New York *258 elected to **1015 promulgate a local procedure according to subdivision (b). That subdivision, so far as here pertinent, provides that the local procedure must in- clude the giving of notice to the recipient of the reasons for a proposed discontinuance or suspen- sion at least seven days prior to its effective date, with notice also that upon request the recipient may have the proposal reviewed by a local welfare offi- cial holding a position superior to that of the super- visor who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension, and, further, that the recipient may sub- mit, for purposes of the review, a written statement to demonstrate why his grant should not be discon- tinued or suspended. The decision by the reviewing official whether to discontinue or suspend aid must be made expeditiously, with written notice of the decision to the recipient. The section further ex- pressly provides that ‘(a)ssistance shall not be dis- continued or suspended prior to the date such notice of decision is sent to the recipient and his represent- ative, if any, or prior to the proposed effective date of discontinuance or suspension, whichever occurs later.’ FN3. The adoption in February 1968 and the amendment in April of Regulation s 351.26 coincided with or followed several revisions by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of its regulations implementing 42 U.S.C. s 602(a)(4), which is the provision of the Social Security Act 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 7 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969132967 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969132967 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969132967 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS157&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000136&DocName=NYSVS166&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000300&DocName=NYSVS158&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS602&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_d40e000072291 that requires a State to afford a ‘fair hear- ing’ to any recipient of aid under a feder- ally assisted program before termination of his aid becomes final. This requirement is satisfied by a post-termination ‘fair hear- ing’ under regulations presently in effect. See HEW Handbook of Public Assistance Administration (hereafter HEW Hand- book), pt. IV, ss 6200-6400. A new HEW regulation, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969), now scheduled to take effect in July 1970, 34 Fed.Reg. 13595 (1969), would require con- tinuation of AFDC payments until the final decision after a ‘fair hearing’ and would give recipients a right to appointed counsel at ‘fair hearings.’ 45 CFR s 205.10, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969); 45 CFR s 220.25, 34 Fed.Reg. 1356 (1969). For the safe- guards specified at such ‘fair hearings’ see HEW Handbook, pt. IV, ss 6200-6400. An- other recent regulation now in effect re- quires a local agency administering AFDC to give ‘advance notice of questions it has about an individual’s eligibility so that a recipient has an opportunity to discuss his situation before receiving formal written notice of reduction in payment or termina- tion of assistance.’Id., pt. IV, s 2300(d)(5). This case presents no issue of the validity or construction of the federal regulations. It is only subdivision (b) of s 351.26 of the New York State regulations and imple- menting procedure 68-18 of New York City that pose the constitutional question before us. Cf. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1335, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). Even assuming that the constitutional question might be avoided in the context of AFDC by con- struction of the Social Security Act or of the present federal regulations thereunder, or by waiting for the new regulations to become effective, the question must be faced and decided in the context of New York’s Home Relief program, to which the procedures also apply. Pursuant to subdivision (b), the New York City De- partment of Social Services promulgated Procedure No. 68-18. A caseworker who has doubts about the recipient’s continued eligibility must first discuss them with the recipient. If the caseworker con- cludes that the recipient is no longer eligible, he re- commends termination *259 of aid to a unit super- visor. If the latter concurs, he sends the recipient a letter stating the reasons for proposing to terminate aid and notifying him that within seven days he may request that a higher official review the record, and may support the request with a written state- ment prepared personally or with the aid of an at- torney or other person. If the reviewing official af- firms the determination of ineligibility, aid is stopped immediately and the recipient is informed by letter of the reasons for the action. Appellees’ challenge to this procedure emphasizes the absence of any provisions for the personal appearance of the recipient before the reviewing official,**1016 for oral presentation of evidence, and for confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses.FN4However, the letter does inform the recipient that he may request a post-termination ‘fair hearing.’FN5This is a proceeding before an in- dependent*260 state hearing officer at which the re- cipient may appear personally, offer oral evidence, confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and have a record made of the hearing. If the recipient prevails at the ‘fair hearing’ he is paid all funds erroneously withheld.FN6HEW Handbook, pt. IV, ss 6200-6500; 18 NYCRR ss 84.2-84.23. A recipient whose aid is not restored by a ‘fair hear- ing’ decision may have judicial review. N.Y.Civil Practice Law and Rules, Art. 78 (1963). The recipi- ent is so notified, 18 NYCRR s 84.16. FN4. These omissions contrast with the provisions of subdivision (a) of s 351.26, the validity of which is not at issue in this Court. That subdivision also requires writ- ten notification to the recipient at least sev- en days prior to the proposed effective date 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 8 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR13595&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR13595&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1356&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1335 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1335 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1335 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC84.2&FindType=L of the reasons for the proposed discontinu- ance or suspension. However, the notifica- tion must further advise the recipient that if he makes a request therefor he will be afforded an opportunity to appear at a time and place indicated before the official identified in the notice, who will review his case with him and allow him to present such written and oral evidence as the recip- ient may have to demonstrate why aid should not be discontinued or suspended. The District Court assumed that subdivi- sion (a) would be construed to afford rights of confrontation and cross-examination and a decision based solely on the record. Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893, 906-907 (1968). FN5. N.Y. Social Welfare Law s 353(2) (1966) provides for a post-termination ‘fair hearing’ pursuant to 42 U.S.C. s 602(a)(4). See n. 3, supra. Although the District Court noted that HEW had raised some ob- jections to the New York ‘fair hearing’ procedures, 294 F.Supp., at 898 n. 9, these objections are not at issue in this Court. Shortly before this suit was filed, New York State adopted a similar provision for a ‘fair hearing’ in terminations of Home Relief. 18 NYCRR ss 84.2-84.23. In both AFDC and Home Relief the ‘fair hearing’ must be held within 10 working days of the request, s 84.6, with decision within 12 working days thereafter, s 84.15. It was conceded in oral argument that these time limits are not in fact observed. FN6. Current HEW regulations require the States to make full retroactive payments (with federal matching funds) whenever a ‘fair heairng’ results in a reversal of a ter- mination of assistance. HEW Handbook, pt. IV, ss 6200(k), 6300(g), 6500(a); see 18 NYCRR s 358.8. Under New York State regulations retroactive payments can also be made, with certain limitations, to cor- rect an erroneous termination discovered before a ‘fair hearing’ has been held. 18 NYCRR s 351.27. HEW regulations also authorize, but do not require, the State to continue AFDC payments without loss of federal matching funds pending comple- tion of a ‘fair hearing.’ HEW Handbook, pt. IV, s 6500(b). The new HEW regula- tions presently scheduled to become effect- ive July 1, 1970, will supersede all of these provisions. See n. 3, supra. I The constitutional issue to be decided, therefore, is the narrow one whether the Due Process Clause re- quires that the recipient be afforded an evidentiary hearing before the termination of benefits.FN7The District Court held *261 that only a pretermination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the state and city officials that the combination of the post- termination ‘fair hearing’ with the informal pre- termination review disposed of all due process claims. The court said: ‘While post-termination re- view is **1017 relevant, there is one overpowering fact which controls here. By hypothesis, a welfare recipient is destitute, without funds or assets. * * * Suffice it to say that to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of * * * ‘brutal need’ without a prior hear- ing of some sort is unconscionable, unless over- whelming considerations justify it.’ Kelly v. Wy- man, 294 F.Supp. 893, 899, 900 (1968). The court rejected the argument that the need to protect the public’s tax revenues supplied the requisite ‘overwhelming consideration.’ ‘Against the justi- fied desire to protect public funds must be weighed the individual’s overpowering need in this unique situation not to be wrongfully deprived of assist- ance. * * * While the problem of additional ex- pense must be kept in mind, it does not justify denying a hearing meeting the ordinary standards of due process. Under all the circumstances, we hold that due process requires an adequate hearing be- 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 9 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=906 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=906 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS602&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_d40e000072291 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=898 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC84.2&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC358.8&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC358.8&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC351.27&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1013028&DocName=18NYADC351.27&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=899 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=899 fore termination of welfare benefits, and the fact that there is a later constitutionally fair proceeding does not alter the result.’ Id., at 901. Although state officials were party defendants in the action, only the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed. We noted probable jurisdic- tion, 394 U.S. 971, 89 S.Ct. 1469, 22 L.Ed.2d 751 (1969), to decide important issues that have been the subject of disagreement in principle between the three-judge court in the present case and that con- vened in Wheeler v. Montgomery, 397 U.S. 280, 90 S.Ct. 1026, 25 L.Ed.2d 307.We affirm. FN7. Appellant does not question the re- cipient’s due process right to evidentiary review after termination. For a general dis- cussion of the provision of an evidentiary hearing prior to termination, see Comment, The Constitutional Minimum for the Ter- mination of Welfare Benefits: The Need for and Requirements of a Prior Hearing, 68 Mich.L.Rev. 112 (1969). [1][2][3][4] Appellant does not contend that pro- cedural due process is not applicable to the termina- tion of welfare benefits.*262 Such benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.FN8Their termination involves state action that adjudicates important rights. The constitutional challenge cannot be answered by an argument that public assistance benefits are a ‘privilege’ and not a ‘right.’ Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1327 (1969). Relevant constitutional restraints ap- ply as much to the withdrawal of public assistance benefits as to disqualification for unemployment compensation, Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); or to denial of a tax exemption, Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958); or to discharge from public employment, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692 (1956).FN9 The extent to **1018 which procedural due process *263 must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be ‘condemned to suffer grievous loss,’ Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168, 71 S.Ct. 624, 647, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary adjudication. Accordingly, as we said in Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, etc. v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748-1749, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961), ‘consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the govern- ment function involved as well as of the private in- terest that has been affected by governmental ac- tion.’See also Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 440, 442, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1513, 1514, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960). FN8. It may be realistic today to regard welfare entitlements as more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity.’ Much of the existing wealth in this country takes the form of rights that do not fall within tradi- tional common-law concepts of property. It has been aptly noted that ‘(s)ociety today is built around entitlement. The automobile dealer has his franchise, the doctor and lawyer their professional li- censes, the worker his union membership, contract, and pension rights, the executive his contract and stock options; all are devices to aid security and independence. Many of the most important of these enti- tlements now flow from government: sub- sidies to farmers and businessmen, routes for airlines and channels for television sta- tions; long term contracts for defense, space, and education; social security pen- sions for individuals. Such sources of se- curity, whether private or public, are no longer regarded as luxuries or gratuities; to the recipients they are essentials, fully de- served, and in no sense a form of charity. It 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 10 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968115544 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969202559 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969202559 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970241805 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134199 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1327 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1327 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969132967&ReferencePosition=1327 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963125396 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963125396 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1958121488 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1958121488 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956111192 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956111192 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1956111192 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1951117876&ReferencePosition=647 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1951117876&ReferencePosition=647 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1951117876&ReferencePosition=647 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1951117876&ReferencePosition=647 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1748 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1748 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1748 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960101758&ReferencePosition=1513 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960101758&ReferencePosition=1513 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1960101758&ReferencePosition=1513 is only the poor whose entitlements, al- though recognized by public policy, have not been effectively enforced.’Reich, Indi- vidual Rights and Social Welfare: The Emerging Legal Issues, 74 Yale L.J. 1245, 1255 (1965). See also Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. 733 (1964). FN9. See also Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117, 46 S.Ct. 215, 70 L.Ed. 494 (1926) (right of a certified public accountant to practice be- fore the Board of Tax Appeals); Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (C.A.5th Cir. 1964) (right to obtain a retail liquor store li- cense); Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (C.A.5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961) (right to attend a pub- lic college). [5][6] It is true, of course, that some governmental benefits may be administratively terminated without affording the recipient a pre-termination evidentiary hearing.FN10*264 But we agree with the District Court that when welfare is discontin- ued, only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing provides the recipient with procedural due process. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969). For qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medic- al care.FN11Cf. Nash v. Florida Industrial Com- mission, 389 U.S. 235, 239, 88 S.Ct. 362, 366, 19 L.Ed.2d 438 (1967). Thus the crucial factor in this context-a factor not present in the case of the black- listed government contractor, the discharged gov- ernment employee, the taxpayer denied a tax ex- emption, or virtually anyone else whose govern- mental entitlements are ended-is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligib- ility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits. Since he lacks independent resources, his situation becomes immediately desperate. His need to concentrate upon finding the means for daily subsistence, in turn, adversely **1019 affects his ability to seek re- dress from the welfare bureaucracy.FN12 FN10. One Court of Appeals has stated: ‘In a wide variety of situations, it has long been recognized that where harm to the public is threatened, and the private in- terest infringed is reasonably deemed to be of less importance, an official body can take summary action pending a later hear- ing.’ R. A. Holman & Co. v. SEC, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 47, 299 F.2d 127, 131,cert. denied, 370 U.S. 911, 82 S.Ct. 1257, 8 L.Ed.2d 404 (1962) (suspension of exemption from stock registration require- ment). See also, for example, Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594, 70 S.Ct. 870, 94 L.Ed. 1088 (1950) (seizure of mislabeled vitamin product); North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306, 29 S.Ct. 101, 53 L.Ed. 195 (1908) (seizure of food not fit for human use); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944) (adoption of wartime price regula- tions); Gonzalez v. Freeman, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 334 F.2d 570 (1964) (disqualification of a contractor to do busi- ness with the Government). In Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, etc. v. McEl- roy, supra, 367 U.S. at 896, 81 S.Ct. at 1749, summary dismissal of a public em- ployee was upheld because ‘(i)n (its) pro- prietary military capacity, the Federal Government, * * * has traditionally exer- cised unfettered control,’ and because the case involved the Government’s ‘dispatch of its own internal affairs.’Cf. Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940). FN11. Administrative determination that a person is ineligible for welfare may also render him ineligible for participation in 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 11 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1292&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=0332862494&ReferencePosition=1255 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1292&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=0332862494&ReferencePosition=1255 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1292&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=0332862494&ReferencePosition=1255 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1292&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=0332862494&ReferencePosition=1255 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926121902 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926121902 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1926121902 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964102445 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964102445 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961114402 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961114402 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961203301 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1961203301 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969133006 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1969133006 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129573&ReferencePosition=366 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129573&ReferencePosition=366 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1967129573&ReferencePosition=366 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1962113789&ReferencePosition=131 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1962113789&ReferencePosition=131 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962203550 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1962203550 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1950116992 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1950116992 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1950116992 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1908194564 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1908194564 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1908194564 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1944118103 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1944118103 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1944118103 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964102031 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1964102031 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1749 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1749 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1749 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1961125534&ReferencePosition=1749 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940125771 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940125771 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1940125771 state-financed medical programs. See N.Y. Social Welfare Law s 366 (1966). FN12. His impaired adversary position is particularly telling in light of the welfare bureaucracy’s difficulties in reaching cor- rect decisions on eligibility. See Comment, Due Process and the Right to a Prior Hear- ing in Welfare Cases, 37 Ford.L.Rev. 604, 610-611 (1969). Moreover, important governmental interests are promoted by affording recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing. From its founding the Nation’s basic *265 commitment has been to foster the dig- nity and well-being of all persons within its bor- ders. We have come to recognize that forces not within the control of the poor contribute to their poverty.FN13This perception, against the back- ground of our traditions, has significantly influ- enced the development of the contemporary public assistance system. Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community. At the same time, wel- fare guards against the societal malaise that may flow from a widespread sense of unjustified frustra- tion and insecurity. Public assistance, then, is not mere charity, but a means to ‘promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.’The same government- al interests that counsel the provision of welfare, counsel as well its uninterrupted provision to those eligible to receive it; pre-termination evidentiary hearings are indispensable to that end. FN13. See, e.g., Reich, supra, n. 8, 74 Yale L.J., at 1255. Appellant does not challenge the force of these con- siderations but argues that they are outweighed by countervailing governmental interests in conserving fiscal and administrative resources. These interests, the argument goes, justify the delay of any eviden- tiary hearing until after discontinuance of the grants. Summary adjudication protects the public fisc by stopping payments promptly upon discovery of reason to believe that a recipient is no longer eli- gible. Since most terminations are accepted without challenge, summary adjudication also conserves both the fisc and administrative time and energy by reducing the number of evidentiary hearings actu- ally held. *266 [7] We agree with the District Court, however, that these governmental interests are not overriding in the welfare context. The requirement of a prior hearing doubtless involves some greater expense, and the benefits paid to ineligible recipi- ents pending decision at the hearing probably can- not be recouped, since these recipients are likely to be judgment-proof. But the State is not without weapons to minimize these increased costs. Much of the drain on fiscal and administrative resources can be reduced by developing procedures for prompt pre-termination hearings and by skillful use of personnel and facilities. Indeed, the very provi- sion for a post-termination evidentiary hearing in New York’s Home Relief program is itself cogent evidence that the State recognizes the primacy of the public interest in correct eligibility determina- tions and therefore in the provision of procedural safeguards. Thus, the interest of the eligible recipi- ent in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the State’s interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State’s competing concern to prevent any in- crease in its fiscal and administrative burdens. As the District Court correctly concluded, ‘(t)he stakes are simply too high for the welfare recipient, and the possibility for honest error or irritable misjudg- ment too great, to allow termination of aid without giving the recipient a chance, if he so desires, to be fully informed **1020 of the case against him so that he may contest its basis and produce evidence in rebuttal.’ 294 F.Supp., at 904-905. II [8][9][10] We also agree with the District Court, 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 12 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968115544&ReferencePosition=904 however, that the pre-termination hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial. We bear in mind that the statutory ‘fair hearing’ will provide the recipient *267 with a full adminis- trative review.FN14Accordingly, the pre- termination hearing has one function only: to pro- duce an initial determination of the validity of the welfare department’s grounds for discontinuance of payments in order to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of his benefits. Cf. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 343, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 1823, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring). Thus, a complete record and a com- prehensive opinion, which would serve primarily to facilitate judicial review and to guide future de- cisions, need not be provided at the pre-termination stage. We recognize, too, that both welfare authorit- ies and recipients have an interest in relatively speedy resolution of questions of eligibility, that they are used to dealing with one another inform- ally, and that some welfare departments have very burdensome caseloads. These considerations justify the limitation of the pre-termination hearing to min- imum procedural safeguards, adapted to the particu- lar characteristics of welfare recipients, and to the limited nature of the controversies to be resolved. We wish to add that we, no less than the dissenters, recognize the importance of not imposing upon the States or the Federal Government in this developing field of law any procedural requirements beyond those demanded by rudimentary due process. FN14. Due process does not, of course, re- quire two hearings. If, for example, a State simply wishes to continue benefits until after a ‘fair’ hearing there will be no need for a preliminary hearing. [11][12]’The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.’ Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 783, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914). The hearing must be ‘at a mean- ingful time and in a meaingful manner.’ Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965). In the present context these principles require that a recipient have timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a *268 proposed termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence or- ally. These rights are important in cases such as those before us, where recipients have challenged proposed terminations as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases.FN15 FN15. This case presents no question re- quiring our determination whether due pro- cess requires only an opportunity for writ- ten submission, or an opportunity both for written submission and oral argument, where there are no factual issues in dispute or where the application of the rule of law is not intertwined with factual issues. See FCC v. WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 275-277, 69 S.Ct. 1097, 1103-1104, 93 L.ed. 1353 (1949). [13][14] We are not prepared to say that the seven- day notice currently provided by New York City is constitutionally insufficient per se, although there may be cases where fairness would require that a longer time be given. Nor do we see any constitu- tional deficiency in the content or form of the no- tice. New York employs both a letter and a personal conference with a caseworker to inform a recipient of the precise questions raised about his continued eligibility. Evidently the recipient is told the legal and factual bases for the Department’s doubts. This combination is probably**1021 the most effective method of communicating with recipients. [15] The city’s procedures presently do not permit recipients to appear personally with or without counsel before the official who finally determines continued eligibility. Thus a recipient is not permit- ted to present evidence to that official orally, or to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. These omissions are fatal to the constitutional adequacy of the procedures. 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 13 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1823 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1823 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1823 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100411&ReferencePosition=783 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100411&ReferencePosition=783 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1914100411&ReferencePosition=783 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965100212&ReferencePosition=1191 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965100212&ReferencePosition=1191 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965100212&ReferencePosition=1191 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949116848&ReferencePosition=1103 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949116848&ReferencePosition=1103 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949116848&ReferencePosition=1103 [16][17][18][19] The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the *269 capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard.FN16 It is not enough that a welfare recipient may present his position to the decision maker in writing or second-hand through his caseworker. Written submissions are an unrealistic option for most recipients, who lack the educational attainment necessary to write effect- ively and who cannot obtain professional assist- ance. Moreover, written submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not per- mit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decision maker appears to regard as important. Particularly where credibility and veracity are at is- sue, as they must be in many termination proceed- ings, written submissions are a wholly unsatisfact- ory basis for decision. The second-hand presenta- tion to the decisionmaker by the caseworker has its own deficiencies; since the caseworker usually gathers the facts upon which the charge of ineligib- ility rests, the presentation of the recipient’s side of the controversy cannot safely be left to him. There- fore a recipient must be allowed to state his posi- tion orally. Informal procedures will suffice; in this context due process does not require a particular or- der of proof or mode of offering evidence. Cf. HEW Handbook, pt. IV, s 6400(a). FN16.'(T)he prosecution of an appeal de- mands a degree of security, awareness, tenacity, and ability which few dependent people have.’Wedemeyer & Moore, The American Welfare System, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 326, 342 (1966). [20][21][22] In almost every setting where import- ant decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross- examine adverse witnesses. E.g., ICC v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94, 33 S.Ct. 185, 187-188, 57 L.Ed. 431 (1913); Willner v. Commit- tee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 103-104, 83 S.Ct. 1175, 1180-1181, 10 L.Ed.2d 224 (1963). What we said in *270 Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 496-497, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 1413, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959), is particularly pertinent here: ‘Certain principles have remained relatively immut- able in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where governmental action seriously injures an in- dividual, and the reasonableness of the action de- pends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the in- dividual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of documentary evidence, it is even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of in- dividuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and cross- examination. They have ancient roots. They find expression in the Sixth Amendment * * *. This Court has been zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not only in criminal cases, * * * but also in all types of cases where ad- ministrative * * * actions were under scrutiny.’ Welfare recipients must therefore be given an op- portunity to confront and cross-examine the wit- nesses relied on by the department. **1022 [23]’The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.’ Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). We do not say that counsel must be provided at the pre-termination hearing, but only that the recipient must be allowed to retain an attor- ney if he so desires. Counsel can help delineate the issues, present the factual contentions in an orderly manner, conduct cross-examination, and generally safeguard the *271 interests of the recipient. We do not anticipate that this assistance will unduly pro- long or otherwise encumber the hearing. Evidently HEW has reached the same conclusion. See 45 CFR s 205.10, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 (1969); 45 CFR s 220.25, 34 Fed.Reg. 13595 (1969). [24][25] Finally, the decisionmaker’s conclusion as 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 14 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1913100600&ReferencePosition=187 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1913100600&ReferencePosition=187 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1913100600&ReferencePosition=187 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963106444&ReferencePosition=1180 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963106444&ReferencePosition=1180 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963106444&ReferencePosition=1180 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1959123798&ReferencePosition=1413 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1932123464&ReferencePosition=64 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1932123464&ReferencePosition=64 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1932123464&ReferencePosition=64 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR1144&FindType=Y http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1037&DocName=34FR13595&FindType=Y to a recipient’s eligibility must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PUC, 301 U.S. 292, 57 S.Ct. 724, 81 L.Ed. 1093 (1937); United States v. Abi- lene & S.R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288-289, 44 S.Ct. 565, 569-570, 68 L.Ed. 1016 (1924). To demon- strate compliance with this elementary requirement, the decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on, cf. Wichita R. & Light Co. v. PUC, 260 U.S. 48, 57-59, 43 S.Ct. 51, 54-55, 67 L.Ed. 124 (1922), though his statement need not amount to a full opinion or even formal findings of fact and conclu- sions of law. And, of course, an impartial decision maker is essential. Cf. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45-46, 70 S.Ct. 445, 451-452, 94 L.Ed. 616 (1950). We agree with the District Court that prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a welfare official from acting as a decision maker. He should not, however, have participated in making the determination under review. Affirmed. Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting. In the last half century the United States, along with many, perhaps most, other nations of the world, has moved far toward becoming a welfare state, that is, a nation that for one reason or another taxes its most *272 affluent people to help support, feed, clothe, and shelter its less fortunate citizens. The result is that today more than nine million men, wo- men, and children in the United States receive some kind of state or federally financed public assistance in the form of allowances or gratuities, generally paid them periodically, usually by the week, month, or quarter.FN1Since these gratuities are paid on the basis of need, the list of recipients is not static, and some people go off the lists and others are added from time to time. These ever-changing lists put a constant administrative burden on government and it certainly could not have reasonably anticipated that this burden would include the additional pro- cedural expense imposed by the Court today. FN1. This figure includes all recipients of Oldage Assistance, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, and general assistance. In this case appel- lants are AFDC and general assistance re- cipients. In New York State alone there are 951,000 AFDC recipients and 108,000 on general assistance. In the Nation as a whole the comparable figures are 6,080,000 and 391,000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1969 (90th ed.), Table 435, p. 297. The dilemma of the ever-increasing poor in the midst of constantly growing affluence presses upon us and must inevitably be met within the framework of our democratic constitutional government, if our system is to survive as such. It was largely to es- cape just such pressing economic problems and at- tendant government repression that people from **1023 Europe, Asia, and other areas settled this country and formed our Nation. Many of those set- tlers had personally suffered from persecutions of various kinds and wanted to get away from govern- ments that had unrestrained powers to make life miserable for their citizens. It was for this reason, or so I believe, that on reaching these new lands the early settlers undertook to curb their governments by confining their powers *273 within written boundaries, which eventually became written con- stitutions.FN2They wrote their basic charters as nearly as men’s collective wisdom could do so as to proclaim to their people and their officials an em- phatic command that: ‘Thus far and no farther shall you go; and where we neither delegate powers to you, nor prohibit your exercise of them, we the people are left free.’FN3 FN2. The goal of a written constitution with fixed limits on governmental power had long been desired. Prior to our colonial constitutions, the closest man had come to realizing this goal was the political move- 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 15 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937121957 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1937121957 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1924124097&ReferencePosition=569 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1924124097&ReferencePosition=569 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1924124097&ReferencePosition=569 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1922117906&ReferencePosition=54 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1922117906&ReferencePosition=54 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955119803 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1955119803 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950120143&ReferencePosition=451 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950120143&ReferencePosition=451 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1950120143&ReferencePosition=451 ment of the Levellers in England in the 1640’s. J. Frank, The Levellers (1955). In 1647 the Levellers proposed the adoption of An Agreement of the People which set forth written limitations on the English Government. This proposal contained many of the ideas which later were incor- porated in the constitutions of this Nation. Id. at 135-147. FN3. This command is expressed in the Tenth Amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Representatives of the people of the Thirteen Ori- ginal Colonies spent long, hot months in the sum- mer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, creating a government of limited powers. They divided it in- to three departments-Legislative, Judicial, and Ex- ecutive. The Judicial Department was to have no part whatever in making any laws. In fact proposals looking to vesting some power in the Judiciary to take part in the legislative process and veto laws were offered, considered, and rejected by the Con- stitutional Convention.FN4 In my *274 judgment there is not one word, phrase, or sentence from the beginning to the end of the Constitution from which it can be inferred that judges were granted any such legislative power. True, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), held, and properly, I think, that courts must be the final interpreters of the Constitution, and I recognize that the holding can provide an opportunity to slide imperceptibly into constitutional amendment and law making. But when federal judges use this judicial power for le- gislative purposes, I think they wander out of their field of vested powers and transgress into the area constitutionally assigned to the Congress and the people. That is precisely what I believe the Court is doing in this case. Hence my dissent. FN4. It was proposed that members of the judicial branch would sit on a Council of Revision which would consider legislation and have the power to veto it. This propos- al was rejected. J. Elliot, 1 Elliot’s Debates 160, 164, 214 (Journal of the Federal Con- vention); 395, 398 (Yates’ Minutes); vol. 5, pp. 151, 161-166, 344-349 (Madison’s Notes) (Lippincott ed. 1876). It was also suggested that The Chief Justice would serve as a member of the President’s exec- utive council, but this proposal was simil- arly rejected. Id., vol. 5, pp. 442, 445, 446, 462. The more than a million names on the relief rolls in New York,FN5 and the more than nine million names on the rolls of all the 50 States were not put there at random. The names are there because state welfare officials believed that those people were eligible for assistance. Probably in the officials’ haste to make out the lists many names were put there erroneously in order to alleviate immediate suffering, and undoubtedly some people are draw- ing relief who are not entitled **1024 under the law to do so. Doubtless some draw relief checks from time to time who know they are not eligible, either because they are not actually in need or for some other reason. Many of those who thus draw un- deserved gratuities are without sufficient property to enable the government to collect back from them any money they wrongfully receive. But the Court today holds that it would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to stop pay- ing those people weekly or monthly allowances un- less the government first affords them a full ‘evidentiary hearing’ even *275 though welfare of- ficials are persuaded that the recipients are not rightfully entitled to receive a penny under the law. In other words, although some recipients might be on the lists for payment wholly because of deliber- ate fraud on their part, the Court holds that the gov- ernment is helpless and must continue, until after an evidentiary hearing, to pay money that it does not owe, never has owed, and never could owe. I do not believe there is any provision in our Constitu- 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 16 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1801123932 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1801123932 tion that should thus paralyze the government’s ef- forts to protect itself against making payments to people who are not entitled to them. FN5. See n. 1, supra. Particularly do I not think that the Fourteenth Amendment should be given such an unnecessarily broad construction. That Amendment came into be- ing primarily to protect Negroes from discrimina- tion, and while some of its language can and does protect others, all know that the chief purpose be- hind it was to protect ex-slaves. Cf. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 71-72, and n. 5, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 1686, 91 L.Ed. 1903 (1947) (dissenting opin- ion). The Court, however, relies upon the Four- teenth Amendment and in effect says that failure of the government to pay a promised charitable instal- ment to an individual deprives that individual of his own property, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It somewhat strains credulity to say that the government’s prom- ise of charity to an individual is property belonging to that individual when the government denies that the individual is honestly entitled to receive such a payment. I would have little, if any, objection to the major- ity’s decision in this case if it were written as the re- port of the House Committee on Education and Labor, but as an opinion ostensibly resting on the language of the Constitution I find it woefully defi- cient. Once the verbiage is pared away it is obvious that this Court today adopts the views of the Dis- trict Court ‘that to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of * * * ‘brutal need’ without a prior *276 hearing of some sort is unconscionable,’ and there- fore, says the Court, unconstitutional. The majority reaches this result by a process of weighing ‘the re- cipient’s interest in avoiding’ the termination of welfare benefits against ‘the governmental interest in summary adjudication.’Ante, at 1018. Today’s balancing act requires a ‘pre-termination eviden- tiary hearing,’ yet there is nothing that indicates what tomorrow’s balance will be. Although the ma- jority attempts to bolster its decision with limited quotations from prior cases, it is obvious that today’s result doesn’t depend on the language of the Constitution itself or the principles of other de- cisions, but solely on the collective judgment of the majority as to what would be a fair and humane procedure in this case. This decision is thus only another variant of the view often expressed by some members of this Court that the Due Process Clause forbids any con- duct that a majority of the Court believes ‘unfair,’ ‘indecent,’ or ‘shocking to their con- sciences.’ See, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952). Neither these words nor any like them appear any- where in the Due Process Clause. If they did, they would leave the majority of Justices free to hold any conduct unconstitutional that they should con- clude **1025 on their own to be unfair or shocking to them.FN6Had the drafters of the Due Process Clause meant to leave judges such ambulatory power to declare *277 laws unconstitutional, the chief value of a written constitution, as the Founders saw it, would have been lost. In fact, if that view of due process is correct, the Due Process Clause could easily swallow up all other parts of the Constitution. And truly the Constitution would always be ‘what the judges say it is’ at a given mo- ment, not what the Founders wrote into the docu- ment.FN7A written constitution, designed to guar- antee protection against governmental abuses, in- cluding those of judges, must have written stand- ards that mean something definite and have an ex- plicit content. I regret very much to be compelled to say that the Court today makes a drastic and dan- gerous departure from a Constitution written to control and limit the government and the judges and moves toward a constitution designed to be no more and no less than what the judges of a particu- lar social and economic philosophy declare on the one hand to be fair or on the other hand to be shocking and unconscionable. FN6. I am aware that some feel that the process employed in reaching today’s de- 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 17 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1947114039&ReferencePosition=1686 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1947114039&ReferencePosition=1686 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1947114039&ReferencePosition=1686 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1952118934&ReferencePosition=209 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1952118934&ReferencePosition=209 cision is not dependent on the individual views of the Justices involved, but is a mere objective search for the ‘collective conscience of mankind,’ but in my view that description is only a euphemism for an individual’s judgment. Judges are as human as anyone and as likely as others to see the world through their own eyes and find the ‘collective conscience’ remarkably similar to their own. Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 518-519, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1700-1701, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 350-351, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969) (Black, J., dissenting). FN7. To realize how uncertain a standard of ‘fundamental fairness’ would be, one has only to reflect for a moment on the possible disagreement if the ‘fairness’ of the procedure in this case were propounded to the head of the National Welfare Rights Organization, the president of the national Chamber of Commerce, and the chairman of the John Birch Society. The procedure required today as a matter of consti- tutional law finds no precedent in our legal system. Reduced to its simplest terms, the problem in this case is similar to that frequently encountered when two parties have an ongoing legal relationship that requires one party to make periodic payments to the other. Often the situation arises where the party ‘owing’ the money stops paying it and justifies his conduct by arguing that the recipient is not legally entitled to payment. The recipient can, of course, disagree and go to court to compel payment. But I know of no situation in our legal system in which the person alleged to owe money to *278 another is required by law to continue making payments to a judgment-proof claimant without the benefit of any security or bond to insure that these payments can be recovered if he wins his legal argument. Yet today’s decision in no way obligates the welfare re- cipient to pay back any benefits wrongfully re- ceived during the pretermination evidentiary hear- ings or post any bond, and in all ‘fairness’ it could not do so. These recipients are by definition too poor to post a bond or to repay the benefits that, as the majority assumes, must be spent as received to insure survival. The Court apparently feels that this decision will benefit the poor and needy. In my judgment the eventual result will be just the opposite. While today’s decision requires only an administrative, evidentiary hearing, the inevitable logic of the ap- proach taken will lead to constitutionally imposed, time-consuming delays of a full adversary process of administrative and judicial review. In the next case the welfare recipients are bound to argue that cutting off benefits before judicial review of the agency’s decision is also a denial of due process. Since, by hypothesis,**1026 termination of aid at that point may still ‘deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits,’ante, at 1018, I would be surprised if the weighing process did not compel the conclusion that termination without full judicial review would be unconscionable. After all, at each step, as the majority seems to feel, the issue is only one of weighing the government’s pocketbook against the actual survival of the recipient, and surely that bal- ance must always tip in favor of the individual. Similarly today’s decision requires only the oppor- tunity to have the benefit of counsel at the adminis- trative hearing, but it is difficult to believe that the same reasoning process would not require the ap- pointment of counsel, for otherwise the right to counsel is a meaningless one since these *279 people are too poor to hire their own advocates. Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 796, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). Thus the end result of today’s decision may well be that the govern- ment, once it decides to give welfare benefits, can- not reverse that decision until the recipient has had the benefits of full administrative and judicial re- view, including, of course, the opportunity to present his case to this Court. Since this process 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 18 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965125098&ReferencePosition=1700 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965125098&ReferencePosition=1700 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965125098&ReferencePosition=1700 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1827 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1827 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1969133006&ReferencePosition=1827 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963125313&ReferencePosition=796 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963125313&ReferencePosition=796 will usually entail a delay of several years, the in- evitable result of such a constitutionally imposed burden will be that the government will not put a claimant on the rolls initially until it has made an exhaustive investigation to determine his eligibility. While this Court will perhaps have insured that no needy person will be taken off the rolls without a full ‘due process’ proceeding, it will also have in- sured that many will never get on the rolls, or at least that they will remain destitute during the lengthy proceedings followed to determine initial eligibility. For the foregoing reasons I dissent from the Court’s holding. The operation of a welfare state is a new experiment for our Nation. For this reason, among others, I feel that new experiments in carrying out a welfare program should not be frozen into our con- stitutional structure. They should be left, as are oth- er legislative determinations, to the Congress and the legislatures that the people elect to make our laws. U.S.N.Y. 1970. Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 END OF DOCUMENT 90 S.Ct. 1011 Page 19 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (Cite as: 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ”

“Code of Federal Regulations Title 42. Public Health Chapter IV. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services Subchapter C. Medical Assistance Programs Part 431. State Organization and General Administration Subpart E. Fair Hearings for Applicants and Recipients 431.200 Basis and scope. This subpart– (a) Implements section 1902(a)(3) of the Act, which requires that a State plan provide an opportunity for a fair hearing to any person whose claim for assistance is denied or not acted upon promptly; (b) Prescribes procedures for an opportunity for a hearing if the State agency or PAHP takes action, as stated in this subpart, to suspend, terminate, or reduce services, or an MCO or PIHP takes action under subpart F of part 438 of this chapter; and (c) Implements sections 1919(f)(3) and 1919(e)(7)(F) of the Act by providing an appeals process for any person who– (1) Is subject to a proposed transfer or discharge from a nursing facility; or (2) Is adversely affected by the pre-admission screening or the annual resident review that are required by section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. 431.201 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: Action means a termination, suspension, or reduction of Medicaid eligibility or covered services. It also means determinations by skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities to transfer or discharge residents and adverse determinations made by a State with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. Adverse determination means a determination made in accordance with sections 1919(b)(3)(F) or 1919(e)(7)(B) of the Act that the individual does not require the level of services provided by a nursing facility or that the individual does or does not require specialized services. Date of action means the intended date on which a termination, suspension, reduction, transfer or discharge becomes effective. It also means the date of the determination made by a State with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. De novo hearing means a hearing that starts over from the beginning. Evidentiary hearing means a hearing conducted so that evidence may be presented. Notice means a written statement that meets the requirements of 431.210. Request for a hearing means a clear expression by the applicant or recipient, or his authorized representative, that he wants the opportunity to present his case to a reviewing authority. Service authorization request means a managed care enrollee’s request for the provision of a service. 431.202 State plan requirements. A State plan must provide that the requirements of 431.205 through 431.246 of this subpart are met. 431.205 Provision of hearing system. (a) The Medicaid agency must be responsible for maintaining a hearing system that meets the requirements of this subpart. (b) The State’s hearing system must provide for\u2014 (1) A hearing before the agency; or (2) An evidentiary hearing at the local level, with a right of appeal to a State agency hearing. (c) The agency may offer local hearings in some political subdivisions and not in others. (d) The hearing system must meet the due process standards set forth in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and any additional standards specified in this subpart. 431.206 Informing applicants and recipients. (a) The agency must issue and publicize its hearing procedures. (b) The agency must, at the time specified in paragraph (c) of this section, inform every applicant or recipient in writing– (1) Of his right to a hearing; (2) Of the method by which he may obtain a hearing; and (3) That he may represent himself or use legal counsel, a relative, a friend, or other spokesman. (c) The agency must provide the information required in paragraph (b) of this section– (1) At the time that the individual applies for Medicaid; (2) At the time of any action affecting his or her claim; (3) At the time a skilled nursing facility or a nursing facility notifies a resident in accordance with 483.12 of this chapter that he or she is to be transferred or discharged; and (4) At the time an individual receives an adverse determination by the State with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. 431.210 Content of notice. A notice required under 431.206(c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this subpart must contain– (a) A statement of what action the State, skilled nursing facility, or nursing facility intends to take; (b) The reasons for the intended action; (c) The specific regulations that support, or the change in Federal or State law that requires, the action; (d) An explanation of– (1) The individual’s right to request an evidentiary hearing if one is available, or a State agency hearing; or (2) In cases of an action based on a change in law, the circumstances under which a hearing will be granted; and (e) An explanation of the circumstances under which Medicaid is continued if a hearing is requested. 431.211 Advance notice. The State or local agency must mail a notice at least 10 days before the date of action, except as permitted under 431.213 and 431.214 of this subpart. 431.213 Exceptions from advance notice. The agency may mail a notice not later than the date of action if– (a) The agency has factual information confirming the death of a recipient; (b) The agency receives a clear written statement signed by a recipient that– (1) He no longer wishes services; or (2) Gives information that requires termination or reduction of services and indicates that he understands that this must be the result of supplying that information; (c) The recipient has been admitted to an institution where he is ineligible under the plan for further services; (d) The recipient’s whereabouts are unknown and the post office returns agency mail directed to him indicating no forwarding address (See 431.231(d) of this subpart for procedure if the recipient’s whereabouts become known); (e) The agency establishes the fact that the recipient has been accepted for Medicaid services by another local jurisdiction, State, territory, or commonwealth; (f) A change in the level of medical care is prescribed by the recipient’s physician; (g) The notice involves an adverse determination made with regard to the preadmission screening requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act; or (h) The date of action will occur in less than 10 days, in accordance with 483.12(a)(5)(ii), which provides exceptions to the 30 days notice requirements of 483.12(a)(5)(i). 431.214 Notice in cases of probable fraud. The agency may shorten the period of advance notice to 5 days before the date of action if– (a) The agency has facts indicating that action should be taken because of probable fraud by the recipient; and (b) The facts have been verified, if possible, through secondary sources. 431.220 When a hearing is required. (a) The State agency must grant an opportunity for a hearing to the following: (1) Any applicant who requests it because his claim for services is denied or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness. (2) Any recipient who requests it because he or she believes the agency has taken an action erroneously. (3) Any resident who requests it because he or she believes a skilled nursing facility or nursing facility has erroneously determined that he or she must be transferred or discharged. (4) Any individual who requests it because he or she believes the State has made an erroneous determination with regard to the preadmission and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. (5) Any MCO or PIHP enrollee who is entitled to a hearing under subpart F of part 438 of this chapter. (6) Any PAHP enrollee who has an action as stated in this subpart. (7) Any enrollee who is entitled to a hearing under subpart B of part 438 of this chapter. (b) The agency need not grant a hearing if the sole issue is a Federal or State law requiring an automatic change adversely affecting some or all recipients. 431.221 Request for hearing. (a) The agency may require that a request for a hearing be in writing. (b) The agency may not limit or interfere with the applicant’s or recipient’s freedom to make a request for a hearing. (c) The agency may assist the applicant or recipient in submitting and processing his request. (d) The agency must allow the applicant or recipient a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days from the date that notice of action is mailed, to request a hearing. 431.222 Group hearings. The agency– (a) May respond to a series of individual requests for hearing by conducting a single group hearing; (b) May consolidate hearings only in cases in which the sole issue involved is one of Federal or State law or policy; (c) Must follow the policies of this subpart and its own policies governing hearings in all group hearings; and (d) Must permit each person to present his own case or be represented by his authorized representative. 431.223 Denial or dismissal of request for a hearing. The agency may deny or dismiss a request for a hearing if– (a) The applicant or recipient withdraws the request in writing; or (b) The applicant or recipient fails to appear at a scheduled hearing without good cause. 431.230 Maintaining services. (a) If the agency mails the 10-day or 5-day notice as required under 431.211 or 431.214 of this subpart, and the recipient requests a hearing before the date of action, the agency may not terminate or reduce services until a decision is rendered after the hearing unless– (1) It is determined at the hearing that the sole issue is one of Federal or State law or policy; and (2) The agency promptly informs the recipient in writing that services are to be terminated or reduced pending the hearing decision. (b) If the agency’s action is sustained by the hearing decision, the agency may institute recovery procedures against the applicant or recipient to recoup the cost of any services furnished the recipient, to the extent they were furnished solely by reason of this section. 431.231 Reinstatement of services. (a) The agency may reinstate services if a recipient requests a hearing not more than 10 days after the date of action. (b) The reinstated services must continue until a hearing decision unless, at the hearing, it is determined that the sole issue is one of Federal or State law or policy. (c) The agency must reinstate and continue services until a decision is rendered after a hearing if– (1) Action is taken without the advance notice required under 431.211 or 431.214 of this subpart; (2) The recipient requests a hearing within 10 days of the mailing of the notice of action; and (3) The agency determines that the action resulted from other than the application of Federal or State law or policy. (d) If a recipient’s whereabouts are unknown, as indicated by the return of unforwardable agency mail directed to him, any discontinued services must be reinstated if his whereabouts become known during the time he is eligible for services. 431.232 Adverse decision of local evidentiary hearing. If the decision of a local evidentiary hearing is adverse to the applicant or recipient, the agency must- – (a) Inform the applicant or recipient of the decision; (b) Inform the applicant or recipient that he has the right to appeal the decision to the State agency, in writing, within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of the adverse decision; (c) Inform the applicant or recipient of his right to request that his appeal be a de novo hearing; and (d) Discontinue services after the adverse decision. 431.233 State agency hearing after adverse decision of local evidentiary hearing. (a) Unless the applicant or recipient specifically requests a de novo hearing, the State agency hearing may consist of a review by the agency hearing officer of the record of the local evidentiary hearing to determine whether the decision of the local hearing officer was supported by substantial evidence in the record. (b) A person who participates in the local decision being appealed may not participate in the State agency hearing decision. 431.240 Conducting the hearing. (a) All hearings must be conducted– (1) At a reasonable time, date, and place; (2) Only after adequate written notice of the hearing; and (3) By one or more impartial officials or other individuals who have not been directly involved in the initial determination of the action in question. (b) If the hearing involves medical issues such as those concerning a diagnosis, an examining physician’s report, or a medical review team’s decision, and if the hearing officer considers it necessary to have a medical assessment other than that of the individual involved in making the original decision, such a medical assessment must be obtained at agency expense and made part of the record. 431.241 Matters to be considered at the hearing. The hearing must cover– (a) Agency action or failure to act with reasonable promptness on a claim for services, including both initial and subsequent decisions regarding eligibility; (b) Agency decisions regarding changes in the type or amount of services; (c) A decision by a skilled nursing facility or nursing facility to transfer or discharge a resident; and (d) A State determination with regard to the preadmission screening and annual resident review requirements of section 1919(e)(7) of the Act. 431.242 Procedural rights of the applicant or recipient. The applicant or recipient, or his representative, must be given an opportunity to– (a) Examine at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing and during the hearing: (1) The content of the applicant’s or recipient’s case file; and (2) All documents and records to be used by the State or local agency or the skilled nursing facility or nursing facility at the hearing; (b) Bring witnesses; (c) Establish all pertinent facts and circumstances; (d) Present an argument without undue interference; and (e) Question or refute any testimony or evidence, including opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. 431.243 Parties in cases involving an eligibility determination. If the hearing involves an issue of eligibility and the Medicaid agency is not responsible for eligibility determinations, the agency that is responsible for determining eligibility must participate in the hearing. 431.244 Hearing decisions. (a) Hearing recommendations or decisions must be based exclusively on evidence introduced at the hearing. (b) The record must consist only of– (1) The transcript or recording of testimony and exhibits, or an official report containing the substance of what happened at the hearing; (2) All papers and requests filed in the proceeding; and (3) The recommendation or decision of the hearing officer. (c) The applicant or recipient must have access to the record at a convenient place and time. (d) In any evidentiary hearing, the decision must be a written one that– (1) Summarizes the facts; and (2) Identifies the regulations supporting the decision. (e) In a de novo hearing, the decision must– (1) Specify the reasons for the decision; and (2) Identify the supporting evidence and regulations. (f) The agency must take final administrative action as follows: (1) Ordinarily, within 90 days from the earlier of the following: (i) The date the enrollee filed an MCO or PIHP appeal, not including the number of days the enrollee took to subsequently file for a State fair hearing; or (ii) If permitted by the State, the date the enrollee filed for direct access to a State fair hearing. (2) As expeditiously as the enrollee’s health condition requires, but no later than 3 working days after the agency receives, from the MCO or PIHP, the case file and information for any appeal of a denial of a service that, as indicated by the MCO or PIHP– (i) Meets the criteria for expedited resolution as set forth in 438.410(a) of this chapter, but 42 C.F.R. 431.244 Page 1 \u00a9 2009 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. was not resolved within the timeframe for expedited resolution; or (ii) Was resolved within the timeframe for expedited resolution, but reached a decision wholly or partially adverse to the enrollee. (3) If the State agency permits direct access to a State fair hearing, as expeditiously as the enrollee’s health condition requires, but no later than 3 working days after the agency receives, directly from an MCO or PIHP enrollee, a fair hearing request on a decision to deny a service that it determines meets the criteria for expedited resolution, as set forth in 438.410(a) of this chapter. (g) The public must have access to all agency hearing decisions, subject to the requirements of Subpart F of this part for safeguarding of information. 431.245 Notifying the applicant or recipient of a State agency decision. The agency must notify the applicant or recipient in writing of– (a) The decision; and (b) His right to request a State agency hearing or seek judicial review, to the extent that either is available to him. 431.246 Corrective action. The agency must promptly make corrective payments, retroactive to the date an incorrect action was taken, and, if appropriate, provide for admission or readmission of an individual to a facility if– (a) The hearing decision is favorable to the applicant or recipient; or (b) The agency decides in the applicant’s or recipient’s favor before the hearing. 431.250 Federal financial participation. FFP is available in expenditures for– (a) Payments for services continued pending a hearing decision; (b) Payments made– (1) To carry out hearing decisions; and (2) For services provided within the scope of the Federal Medicaid program and made under a court order. (c) Payments made to take corrective action prior to a hearing; (d) Payments made to extend the benefit of a hearing decision or court order to individuals in the same situation as those directly affected by the decision or order; (e) Retroactive payments under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section in accordance with applicable Federal policies on corrective payments; and (f) Administrative costs incurred by the agency for- – (1) Transportation for the applicant or recipient, his representative, and witnesses to and from the hearing; (2) Meeting other expenses of the applicant or recipient in connection with the hearing; (3) Carrying out the hearing procedures, including expenses of obtaining the additional medical assessment specified in 431.240 of this subpart; and (4) Hearing procedures for Medicaid and non- Medicaid individuals appealing transfers, discharges and determinations of preadmission screening and annual resident reviews under part 483, subparts C and E of this chapter. [57 FR 56505, Nov. 30, 1992; 66 FR 6403, Jan. 19, 2001; 66 FR 11546, Feb. 26, 2001; 66 FR 32777, June 18, 2001; 66 FR 43090, Aug. 17, 2001; 67 FR 40988, 41094, June 14, 2002; 67 FR 42609, June 24, 2002] SOURCE: 43 FR 45188, Sept. 29, 1978; 44 FR 17932, March 29, 1979; 51 FR 41338, Nov. 14, 1986, unless otherwise noted. AUTHORITY: Sec. 1102, Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C. 1302). ”

” CLEOTILDE MORALES et al., Plaintiffs and Ap- pellants, v. LINDA McMAHON, as Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent. No. D010392. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, Cali- fornia. Aug. 27, 1990. SUMMARY A welfare recipient’s aid was reduced based on a determination by the state Department of Social Services that she had been overpaid in prior benefit periods. The Notice of Action sent to her in- formed her of the proposed action reducing her be- nefits, but it failed to state the reason for the pro- posed action, as required by state and federal regu- lations. Two years later she first received a notice stating the reason for the reduction in benefits. She filed for a fair hearing within 90 days of the new notice. The hearing officer concluded that the ac- tion was barred, relying on a state regulation under which the date of an adverse welfare action, for limitations purposes, was the date on which the no- tice was mailed to the claimant, or the date of dis- covery, which was defined as the date the claimant knew or should have known of the action. The hear- ing officer concluded that the recipient’s action was barred because she knew or should have known two years earlier of the action reducing her benefits and of her right to appeal, thereby triggering the 90-day period of appeal. She brought an action for declar- atory and injunctive relief, and for mandamus, chal- lenging the validity of the date-of-discovery regula- tion. The trial court granted the department’s mo- tion for summary judgment, concluding that the regulation was valid. (Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 532466, Kevin W. Midlam, Judge.) The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court grant the recipient’s motion for summary judgment declaring the chal- lenged regulation invalid as violative of federal reg- ulatory requirements. The court held that the regu- lation was incompatible with federal regulations, since it would preclude a recipient from obtaining a federally mandated fair hearing even though he or she never received the federally mandated written notice of adverse action. (Opinion by Froehlich, J., with Kremer, P. J., and Benke, J., concurring.) HEADNOTES Classified to California Digest of Official Reports (1a, 1b) Public Aid and Welfare 2–Federally Funded Welfare Programs– State Compliance. Although a state is not required to participate in a federally funded welfare program, once a state chooses to participate, it must administer the state plan in conformity with the federal laws and regula- tions governing the program. To the extent that state regulations conflict or are incompatible with federal regulations governing such programs, the state regulations are invalid and unenforceable. [See Cal.Jur.3d, Public Aid and Welfare, 4.] (2a, 2b) Public Aid and Welfare 5–Welfare Re- cipients’ Rights– Pretermination Period–Notice of Adverse Action–Validity of State Date- of- discovery Regulation. In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for mandamus, challenging a regulation pro- mulgated by the state Department of Social Ser- vices under which the date of an adverse welfare action, for limitations purposes, was either the date on which the notice was mailed to the claimant or the date of discovery, which was defined as the date the claimant knew or should have known of the ac- tion, the trial court erred in ruling the regulation valid. The regulation was incompatible with federal regulations, since it would preclude a recipient from obtaining a federally mandated fair hearing, even though he or she never received the federally 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 1 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0284165206 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=0122548&FindType=Y&SerialNum=0284165206 mandated written notice of adverse action. While the challenged regulation might well survive if tested against the minimum notice constitutionally mandated, the federal regulatory scheme had elec- ted to impose an arguably higher standard of what process was due, which standard was binding on the state. [Sufficiency of notice or hearing required prior to termination of welfare benefits, note, 47 A.L.R.3d 277. See also 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Constitutional Law, 544.] COUNSEL Anson B. Levitan, Carol Bracy and Colleen Fahey Fearn for Plaintiffs and Appellants. John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Charlton G. Holland III, Assistant Attorney General, Anne S. Pressman and Richard J. Magasin, Deputy Attor- neys General, for Defendant and Respondent. *186 FROEHLICH, J. Appellant Cleotilde Morales brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for manda- mus, challenging a certain regulation promulgated by the Department of Social Services (D.S.S.). Such regulation limits the time for a welfare recipi- ent to request a fair hearing to challenge adverse determinations on certain benefits. Appellant sued individually, and as representative of a class con- sisting of all recipients of benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC program) (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whose request for a fair hearing was denied pursuant to D.S.S.’s manual of policy and procedures (M.P.P.) section 22-009.11 (the challenged regulation). Ap- pellant contends the challenged regulation is inval- id, because it is inconsistent with controlling feder- al regulations and state statutes providing for rights to notice and hearing, and also is inconsistent with federal and state procedural due process rights. Ap- pellant appeals from the judgment finding the chal- lenged regulation valid. Because the challenged regulation appears incom- patible with controlling federal regulations which mandate written notice of certain adverse determin- ations, we are compelled to conclude the regulation is invalid and unenforceable. 1. Statutory Context The AFDC program is a cooperative federal and state program of financial assistance to needy chil- dren and their families. (See 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; Shea v. Vialpando (1974) 416 U.S. 251, 253 [40 L.Ed.2d 120, 94 S.Ct. 1746].) (1a) Although a state is not required to participate in the program, once a state chooses to participate it must adminis- ter the state plan in conformity with the federal laws and regulations governing the program. ( King v. Smith (1968) 392 U.S. 309, 316-317 [20 L.Ed.2d 1118, 1125, 88 S.Ct. 2128]; Camp v. Swoap (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 733, 743 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 600].) There is no dispute that 45 Code of Federal Regula- tions section 205.5 governs state plans administer- ing certain benefits under the Social Security Act, including the benefits appellant claims were im- properly denied based on the challenged regulation. When the state intends to take certain types of adverse action as to certain benefits (such as re- ducing or ending payments to the recipient), federal regulations under 45 Code of Federal Regulations section 205.10(a)(4) provide that: (i) The State … shall give timely and adequate notice, except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section. Under this requirement: *187 (A) ‘Timely’ means that the notice is mailed at least 10 days before the date of action, that is, the date upon which the action would become effect- ive; (B) ‘Adequate’ means a written notice that includes a statement of what action the agency intends to take, the reasons for the intended agency action, the specific regulations supporting such action, explan- ation of the individual’s right to request an eviden- tiary hearing (if provided) and a State agency hear- ing, the circumstances under which assistance is continued if a hearing is requested, [and an explan- 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 2 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=108&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973019465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=108&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973019465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=108&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973019465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=108&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973019465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS601&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127171 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127171 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974127171 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D733&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=743 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D733&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=743 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D733&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=743 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1979111474 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.5&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.5&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L ation of repayment obligations, if any]. (Italics ad- ded.) FN1 FN1 Similar regulations governing a recip- ient’s right to notice and hearing apply to the food stamp program. (See 7 C.F.R. 273.13.) Federal regulations also mandate that aggrieved re- cipients, dissatisfied with the agency action, be provided the right to a hearing to be conducted un- der the due process standards enunciated in Gold- berg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254 [25 L.Ed.2d 287, 90 S.Ct. 1011] (see 45 C.F.R. 205.10(a)(1)). Such regulations further provide the claimant shall be given a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, in which to appeal the agency action. (See 45 C.F.R. 205.5(a)(5)(iii).) Appellant challenges a state regulation, promul- gated by D.S.S. as part of its M.P.P., which ostens- ibly implements the 90-day limitation period for fil- ing appeals of adverse actions. State regulations in- clude a requirement for notifying a claimant of an adverse action FN2 which parallels the federal no- tice requirements, and mandate that a dissatisfied claimant request a hearing within 90 days after the date of the action. (M.P.P., 22-009.1.) FN2 M.P.P. section 22- 001(a)(1) provides: Adequate Notice – A written no- tice informing the claimant of the action the county intends to take, the reasons for the intended action, the specific regula- tions supporting such action, an explana- tion of the claimant’s right to request a state hearing, and if appropriate, the cir- cumstances under which aid will be contin- ued if a hearing is requested. The specific regulation which appellant contends is invalid provides: If the claimant received adequate notice of the action (see Section 22- 001(a)(1)), the date of the action shall be the date on which the no- tice was mailed to the claimant. In all other cases, the date of the action or inaction shall be con- sidered to be the date the action was discovered. The date of discovery is the date the claimant knew, or should have known, of the action. (M.P.P., 22-009.11, italics added.) FN3*188 FN3 The regulation was amended in 1987 to add that the date of the action would ac- crue from the time the claimant knew, or should have known, of the action and of the right to request a hearing including the procedures necessary to obtain a hearing on such action. (See M.P.P., 22- 009.12.) It is the highlighted portion of the regulation which appellant contests, arguing it effectively dispenses with the necessity of providing written notice. She claims such language precludes a recipient from a fair hearing without ever receiving any written no- tice if the hearing officer concludes the recipient had obtained (or was charged with) knowledge of the agency’s action reducing benefits and of the re- cipient’s right to appeal. 2. Factual and Procedural Background In appellant’s case, her aid was reduced in 1981 based on the D.S.S.’s determination she had been overpaid in prior benefit periods, because she failed to report that an absent parent was in fact living in her home during these prior periods. The Notice of Action (NOA) sent in 1981 informed her of the proposed action reducing her benefits, but failed to state the reason for the proposed action, as required by state and federal regulations. The 1981 NOA in- vited the claimant to call her eligibility worker if she had any questions, and informed her of her right to appeal within 90 days of the NOA. In 1983 Morales first received a NOA stating absent parent at home as the reason for reducing her benefits. Morales filed for a fair hearing within 90 days of the 1983 NOA. The hearing officer, re- lying on the knew or should have known lan- guage of the challenged regulation, concluded the action was barred as untimely because Morales 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 3 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.13&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=7CFRS273.13&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.5&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.5&FindType=L knew or should have known in 1981 of the action reducing her benefits and of her right to appeal, thereby triggering the 90-day period of appeal. The instant lawsuit was then filed to challenge the validity of the state regulation, contending it was incompatible with federal law and violative of fed- eral and state procedural due process guarantees. The trial court granted D.S.S.’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the challenged regulation did not violate federal or state regulatory or constitu- tional requirements. 3. The State Regulation Is Invalid Insofar as It Op- erates to Deny Claimants a Fair Hearing Without Providing Claimants With the Federally Mandated Written Notice of Action (2a) The narrow issue before us is whether the state regulation may validly deny a fair hearing to a re- cipient of AFDC funds, even though the written no- tice of the adverse action required by 45 Code of Federal Regulations section 205.10(a)(4)(i)(B) was never provided, merely because the recipient knew or should have known of the adverse action and his right to appeal. *189 (1b) As discussed above, state participation in the federally funded welfare programs is elective, but once the state opts to participate it must administer its programs in compliance with federal laws and regulations. ( County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 739 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 385, 488 P.2d 953].) To the extent state regulations conflict or are incompatible with federal regulations gov- erning such programs, the state regulations are in- valid and unenforceable. (See, e.g., Camp v. Swoap, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at pp. 741-746.) (2b) We conclude the state regulation is incompat- ible with the federal regulations because the former would preclude a recipient from obtaining a feder- ally mandated fair hearing even though he never re- ceived the federally mandated written notice of ad- verse action. The federal regulation governing hear- ings is unequivocal: In cases of adverse action, the state shall give timely and adequate notice, such adequate notice being defined as written notice containing certain mandatory information. The fed- eral regulation provides no exceptions for oral no- tice or constructive notice. FN4 FN4 Indeed, the fact that the same federal regulation specifies the limited circum- stances under which a less timely or com- prehensive notice will be deemed suffi- cient See 45 C.F.R. 205.10(a)(4)(ii)-(iv)) further convinces us the federal scheme brooks no exceptions for oral or construct- ive notice in lieu of the more comprehens- ive written notice. The parties have not cited, nor have we located, any authorities directly addressing the issue of whether a state may enforce a regulation which effectively eliminates the necessity of providing the federally prescribed written notice, as does the challenged regulation. However, the courts have uniformly in- validated state promulgated policies which provided some form of written notice where the specified notice failed adequately to convey the substantive information federal regulations man- dated for inclusion. (See, e.g., Schroeder v. Heg- strom (D.Ore. 1984) 590 F.Supp. 121, 125-130 [notice which failed to explain reasons for action and basis for determination held invalid for non- compliance with federal regulations, and defective notice cannot be excused by inviting claimant to in- quire orally as to reasons or basis]; Ortiz v. Eichler (D.Del. 1985) 616 F.Supp. 1046, 1061-1063 [notices which failed to fully explain reasons for action or cite supporting regulations held invalid for failure to comply with federal regulations, and ability to inquire for more detail does not cure defi- ciency in notice]; Turner v. Walsh (W.D.Mo. 1977) 435 F.Supp. 707, 713-714, affd. per curiam (8th Cir. 1978) 574 F.2d 456 [written notice failing to describe circumstances under which assistance may be continued and inadequately describing circumstances under which a hearing may be ob- 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 4 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=5CALIF3D730&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=739 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=5CALIF3D730&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=739 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=5CALIF3D730&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=739 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971125465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971125465 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D741&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=741 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D741&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=741 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=226&DocName=94CAAPP3D741&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=741 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1984132325&ReferencePosition=125 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985142929&ReferencePosition=1061 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1977125895&ReferencePosition=713 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978144575 tained held invalid for failure to comply with min- imum regulatory requirements].) We perceive that since incomplete written notices are invalid for failure to convey the substantive in- formation mandated by federal law, a fortiori*190 the failure to give any written notice of that same substantive information is also inadequate. Yet the state regulation purports to permit that if the claimant gets no written notice (or defective no- tice), he is nevertheless precluded from appeal if he learned, or is charged with constructive knowledge, of the reduction in his benefits and his right to ap- peal more than 90 days before his appeal is filed, despite his nonreceipt of the substantive informa- tion federal law requires the state provide in written form. The D.S.S. argues that the regulation is valid be- cause procedural due process is a flexible concept ( Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471, 481 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593]), and that whether a particular regulation is constitutionally sufficient requires a balancing of interests ( Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319 [47 L.Ed.2d 18, 96 S.Ct. 893]), which D.S.S. argues should be struck in favor of upholding a regulation precluding stale appeals by recipients who received actual notice. While the challenged regulation might well survive if tested against the minimum notice constitution- ally mandated, FN5 the federal regulatory scheme has elected to impose an arguably higher standard of what process is due (id. at p. 333), which standard is binding on California. FN5 We note that in the seminal case of Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. 254, the court did not find any constitutional in- firmity in a system which conveyed notice by a combination of a written letter coupled with an oral conference to explain the reasons for the action. (Id. at p. 268.)We also recognize that actual or constructive notice, in the context of a state scheme unencumbered by federal proscriptions, may well be validly substi- tuted for written notice as the trigger for statutes limiting the time for challenging actions. (See Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 938-940 [ 231 Cal.Rptr. 748, 727 P.2d 1029].) The D.S.S. argues, at bottom, that notwithstanding the federal regulation, the notice aspect of due process is satisfied because the recipient is deemed to have obtained notice through oral or other in- formal inquiries. The court in Ortiz v. Eichler, supra, 616 F.Supp. 1046, rejected a similar argu- ment, succinctly stating: Defendants’ second con- tention-that notice inadequacies are unimportant be- cause claimants can call the agency for more de- tailed information-has been repeatedly rejected by other federal courts. [Citations.] The plain language of the regulatory definition of ‘adequate’ … requires written notice. Moreover, the burden of providing adequate notice rests with the state, and it cannot shift that burden to the individual by providing in- adequate notice and inviting the claimant to call to receive complete notice. [citations.] As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals observed in Vargas v. Trainor [(7th Cir. 1974) 508 F.2d 485, 489], public assistance recipients are often less capable than oth- er people of taking affirmative actions to protect their interests [citation]. The result of requiring claimants to make phone calls to obtain adequate notice would be that only the aggressive would re- ceive due process, whereas the applicable *191 reg- ulations require the state to provide due process for all claimants. ( Ortiz v. Eichler, supra, 616 F.Supp. at p. 1062.) We agree that federal law mandates written notice containing specified information, and the chal- lenged regulation is invalid to the extent it bars an appeal in the absence of compliance with federal mandates. 4. Disposition The judgment is reversed and remanded with in- 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 5 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127185 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127185 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127185 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142314 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134198 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=42CALIF3D929&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=938 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=42CALIF3D929&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=938 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=42CALIF3D929&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=938 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=42CALIF3D929&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=938 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986159625 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986159625 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985142929 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985142929 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1985142929 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974113131&ReferencePosition=489 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985142929&ReferencePosition=1062 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985142929&ReferencePosition=1062 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1985142929&ReferencePosition=1062 structions that the trial court grant appellant’s mo- tion for summary judgment (see Darces v. Woods (1984) 35 Cal.3d 871, 895 [ 201 Cal.Rptr. 807, 679 P.2d 458]), declaring that respondent’s M.P.P. sec- tion 22.009.1 ( knew or should have known stand- ard ) is invalid as violative of federal regulatory re- quirements, and that the court thereafter undertake such additional or ancillary proceedings as may be consistent with the views expressed herein. Kremer, P. J., and Benke, J., concurred. *192 Cal.App.4.Dist. Morales v. McMahon 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 END OF DOCUMENT 223 Cal.App.3d 184 Page 6 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 272 Cal.Rptr. 688 (Cite as: 223 Cal.App.3d 184) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=35CALIF3D871&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=895 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=35CALIF3D871&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=895 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=233&DocName=35CALIF3D871&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=895 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984119906 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1984119906 ”

” STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………………….. 916 657-3550 FAX NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………….. 916 651-6258 Manuel A. Romero ………………………………………………………………………………… 657-3550 Chief Administrative Law Judge Eugene Townsend …………………………………………………………………………………. 657-2331 Executive Assistant CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S OFFICE 744 P Street, MS 8-16-50 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 510-622-4000 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 510-622-4004 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-525-2211 Bruce Barber …………………………………………………………………………………. 510-622-3995 Presiding Administrative Law Judge Patricia Day …………………………………………………………………………………………… 622- 4007 Administrative Law Judge Specialist Marcia Settel …………………………………………………………………………………………. 622-3991 Administrative Law Judge Specialist ALJ Staff Edward Barnes ……………………………………………………………………………………… 622-4000 Anne Brandon (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 622-3997 Betty Buccat (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-3989 Richard Cosin (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………… 622-3988 Nina Elsohn (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………… 622-3993 David Gilson (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-4000 Peter Hemenway (RA) …………………………………………………………………………… 622-4000 Alison Mackenzie …………………………………………………………………………………… 622-3999 Newton Ormasa …………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-4000 Hooman Rowshan ………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-4005 Tom Wilcock (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-4000 Support Staff Perla DelRosario ……………………………………………………………………………………. 622-3981 Eva Lagasca …………………………………………………………………………………………. 622-3982 Aimee Haigh ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 622-4000 NORTHERN COASTAL OFFICE 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1203, MS 28-02 Oakland, California 94612 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4187 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-3390 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-538-2431 David Cameron …………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4190 Office Services Supervisor II Support Staff (for Northern Valley Office) Marlene Kain …………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4121 Mianca Stewart ……………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4193 Katherine Stockton ………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4077 Matt Wong …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4113 CENTRAL SUPPORT BUREAU 744 P Street, MS 19-44 Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-263-3100 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 916-263-5043 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-750-6990 Charlene Verseman ……………………………………………………………………………… 263-4858 Presiding Administrative Law Judge Rene Quintanilla (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………. 263-5050 Administrative Law Judge Specialist ALJ Staff Margaret Boyd ………………………………………………………………………………………. 263-4953 Lonnie Carlson (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 263-3100 John Castello (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………. 263-3100 Frederick Clark (San Diego) ………………………………………………………………. 760-510-4632 Norm Cubanski (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………. 263-3156 Jeff Fox (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………………. 263-4876 Keith Levy (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3100 Claire Maudsley (San Diego) ………………………………………………………………….. 263-3100 Leland Oelke (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………….. 263-3100 Jerry Prod (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3100 Tammy Samsel ……………………………………………………………………………………… 263-4894 Bruce Yurman (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3100 Cathy Yamada-Chew …………………………………………………………………………….. 263-4874 Staff Services Manager I Analyst Staff Pranesh Chand ……………………………………………………………………………………… 263-4873 Support Staff Anita Armas …………………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3119 Karen Inberg …………………………………………………………………………………………. 263-6867 Mark Levingston …………………………………………………………………………………….. 263-3115 Francis Lopez ………………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3172 Diane Perry-Hill (RA) \/ Jeanette Battyany (RA) …………………………………………… 263-3100 Danielle Shropshire ………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3117 Leigh Smith …………………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3100 Josie Torres Bilingual (Spanish) …………………………………………………………… 263-3100 Valerie Treadway …………………………………………………………………………………… 263-3105 Gayle Walker …………………………………………………………………………………………. 263-3152 DISABILITY HEARINGS BUREAU 744 P Street, MS 19-66 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 ALJ II Specialist Staff Jos\u00e9 Ba\u00f1uelos (RA) (Northern Valley) ………………………………………………… 916-229-4187 Barry Bernstein (Los Angeles) …………………………………………………………… 213-833-2206 Patrick Coony (RA) (San Diego) ………………………………………………………. 760-510-4999 Patricia Day (Northern Coastal) …………………………………………………………. 510-622-4007 Leslie Gray (Northern Valley) …………………………………………………………….. 916-229-4187 Marcia Settel (Northern Coastal) ………………………………………………………… 213-833-2206 Casimiro Tolentino (Los Angeles) ………………………………………………………. 213-833-2217 TRAINING & QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BUREAU 744 P Street, MS 19-72 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER FAX NUMB MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 213-833-2200 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 213-833-2231 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 213-833-2230 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-708-0792 Ronald Mendoza …………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2208 Presiding Administrative Law Judge Casimiro Tolentino …………………………………………………………………………………. 833-2217 Administrative Law Judge Specialist Barry Bernstein ……………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2206 Administrative Law Judge Specialist ALJ Staff Jack Alanis ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 833-2205 William Blum …………………………………………………………………………………………. 833-2209 Albert Bresticker …………………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2219 Andrew Carroll ………………………………………………………………………………………. 833-2200 Hermine Honarvar-Rule ………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2200 Dana LaMon ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2232 Vivian Luna …………………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2211 Jerry Quintiliani ……………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2214 Barbara Schlueter ………………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2211 Diane Tan ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2223 Analyst Staff Mike Ceja ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2207 Support Staff Kristina Williams-Cooper ………………………………………………………………………. 833-2281 Office Services Supervisor II Joyce Harris ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2280 Jose Huizar …………………………………………………………………………………………… 833-2210 Maria Pinedo …………………………………………………………………………………………. 488-6441 Antonia Rutigliano ………………………………………………………………………………….. 833-2204 Corinne Saiki …………………………………………………………………………………………. 488-6440 LOS ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE 811 Wilshire Blvd., Room 1118, MS 28-01 Los Angeles, California 90017 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4100 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-2081 Esther Smithstan (RA) …………………………………………………………………………. 229-4151 Staff Services Manager II Analyst Staff Charles Chung ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4178 LeAnn Hale …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4092 Chita Fe Benito ……………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4118 Scott Brown …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4068 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUREAU 744 P Street, MS 19-36 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4100 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4489 FAX NUMBER ………………………………………………………. (Compliance Only) 916-229-4160 Esther Smithstan (RA) …………………………………………………………………………. 229-4151 Staff Services Manager II Analyst Staff Chelsea Baxter ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4137 Steven Kloose ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4156 Karen Pacol …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-3013 Carriene Seabron ………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4120 Ginger Stegeman …………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4152 Christopher St. Mary ……………………………………………………………………………… 229-0312 Support Staff Robyn Valencia ……………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4090 OPERATIONS SUPPORT BUREAU 744 P Street, MS 19-36 Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4187 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-3390 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-538-2431 John Pierson ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4057 Presiding Administrative Law Judge (Regional Office) Karlen Harmison…………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4058 Presiding Administrative Law Judge (Special Projects) Leslie Gray …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Administrative Law Judge Specialist ALJ Staff Patrick Bupara ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4187 Lora Clopine ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4063 Charles DeCuir ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4174 Fred Foote (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4187 Bob Fugina (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Carole Harper (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Mark Hammond ……………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Susan Hayden (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4187 Arnulfo Hernandez (RA) ………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4187 Charles Hollis (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………. 227-6351 Kenneth Hulse (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4093 Samuel Jackson ……………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Michael Kanz …………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Michael LeLouis …………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-3497 Greg Martin …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Casey McKeever ……………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4071 Vincent Misenti ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Herbert Nobriga (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Loreen O’Hare-Hall (RA) …………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Elizabeth Parker …………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4187 Eric Ross ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4162 Joseph Russell ……………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Patricia Torbert (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Steve Shaffer ………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4505 Linda Jane Slaughter (RA) ………………………………………………………………………. 229-4187 Linda Spaulding (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………… 227-4187 John Turner (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4187 Mary Wagoner ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4895 Jack Wright (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4069 Support Staff: Contact Central Support Bureau NORTHERN VALLEY OFFICE 744 P Street, MS 19-44 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 760-510-4999 FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 760-510-4998 TDD NUMBER …………………………………………………………………………………. 760 510-4910 TOLL FREE NUMBER ……………………………………………………………………… 866-388-4427 Anthony Gurrola …………………………………………………………………………………… 510-4999 Presiding Administrative Law Judge Patrick Coony (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4999 Administrative Law Judge Specialist ALJ Staff Margaret Ba\u00f1ez ……………………………………………………………………………………… 510-4997 James Beall …………………………………………………………………………………………… 510-4934 Rufino Diaz ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4937 Gil Eastham …………………………………………………………………………………………… 510-4940 Allan Lenefsky ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 510-4930 Enaj Leotaud …………………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4933 Cristina Phillips (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………… 510-4992 JoAnn Sawyer-Knoll ……………………………………………………………………………….. 510-4999 Deborah Smaller ……………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4990 Support Staff Andrea Evering ……………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4911 Office Services Supervisor II Lucille Heath …………………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4995 Sarah Longoria ………………………………………………………………………………………. 510-4993 Connie Nogues ……………………………………………………………………………………… 510-4996 County Room ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 510-4913 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL OFFICE 338 VIA VERA CRUZ, 2ND FLOOR, SUITE 280 San Marcos, California 92078 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 PUBLIC NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………… 1-800-743-8525 MAIN NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………. 916-229-4100 FAX NUMBERS ……………………………………………………………………. (Main) 916-229-4143 (Secondary) 916-229-4110 James Brown ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4155 Staff Services Manager I CUSTOMER SERVICE UNIT Tamika Bailey ………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4135 Leslie Flores ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4131 Salvador Garcia Bilingual (Spanish) …………………………………………… 229-4114 Sylvia Gonzales Bilingual (Spanish) …………………………………………… 229-4128 Melady Looper ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-3496 Barbara Moore-Clark ………………………………………………………………………………. 229-2083 Linda Rodriguez …………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4163 Richard Springer ……………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4109 Tai Tan …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4139 Norma Urias Bilingual (Spanish) …………………………………………… 229-4104 Marvin Altman ………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-5001 Nicko Chaney ………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4167 Laura Melanson ……………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4119 Shaun Moore …………………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4119 Rhonda Reed ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-0874 Lisa Salthe …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-3491 Analyst Staff Rocio Barocio Bilingual (Spanish) …………………………………………… 229-4138 Lori Malone …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4052 Gloria Scott …………………………………………………………………………………………… 229-0873 SCOPE FAX NUMBER …………………………………………………………. (Main Incoming) 916-229-4102 FAX NUMBER ………………………………………………………………. (Secondary) 916-229-2081 STATE HEARINGS SUPPORT SECTION 744 P Street, MS 19-37 Sacramento, California 95814 STATE HEARINGS DIVISION Department of Social Services Updated: 02\/01\/10 PUBLIC NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………… 1-866-513-5103 FAX NUMBER ………………………………………………………………………………… 916-229-4158 Judy Callahan (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………. 229-4192 Staff Services Manager I Marrion Brown (RA) …………………………………………………………………………….. 229-5199 Office Services Supervisor II Support Staff Robbie Chapman …………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4089 Valetta Cheatham (RA) …………………………………………………………………………… 229-5222 Jill Ching (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 229-5228 Carol Kearney (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………… 229-4149 Darlene Miller (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………. 229-5227 Susan Reaney (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 229-4192 Nadie Savage (RA) ………………………………………………………………………………… 229-5230 Judy Woolensack (RA) ……………………………………………………………………………. 229-5237 Analyst Staff Marilyn Ballas (RA) …………………………………………………………………………………. 229-5237 Associate Information Systems Analyst SPECIAL TASK FORCE 744 P Street, MS 19-97 Sacramento, California 95814 ”

” Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, Cali- fornia. Helen WESTFALL, Petitioner and Appellant, v. David SWOAP, Director of State Department of Benefit Payments, Respondent. Civ. 15357. May 7, 1976. Recipient of AFDC benefits sought mandate to compel director of Department of Benefit Payments to dismiss scheduled rehearing after decision in fa- vor of the recipient had been rendered on claim for alleged overpayment of AFDC benefits. The Super- ior Court, Riverside County, Howard E. Crandall, J., denied relief and AFDC recipient appealed. The Court of Appeal, Tamura, Acting P.J., held that term ‘final administrative action’ as used in federal regulation requiring that such final action be taken within 90 days from date of request for hearing did not include completion of rehearing authorized un- der state law; that, since benefits were to be paid after rendition of decision following initial hearing even though request for rehearing might be granted, California rehearing procedure did not run counter to the federal regulation, even though decision on rehearing might be granted more than 90 days after original request for hearing; that the 90-day period was not jurisdictional; and that remedy for failure to comply with the rule was not to terminate the ad- ministrative process altogether but rather to petition for mandate to compel director to take timely ac- tion. Affirmed. West Headnotes [1] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 4.5 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak4.5 k. Federally Assisted Programs and Conformity to Federal Standards. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak6) As condition of continued receipt of federal funds, states participating in federally assisted programs under the Social Security Act must conform to fed- eral regulations. Social Security Act, 1 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. 301 et seq. [2] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(1) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.16, 356Ak194) Term final administrative action as used in feder- al AFDC regulation requiring that such action be taken within 90 days from date of request for hear- ing on question of benefits does not include com- pletion of rehearings authorized under state law. West’s Ann.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10960. [3] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(1) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.16, 356Ak194) Requirement in AFDC regulation that prompt, definitive and final administrative action be taken 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 1 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak4.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak4.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak4.5 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS301&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS301&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 within 90 days from date of request for hearing is not jurisdictional. [4] Statutes 361 181(1) 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k180 Intention of Legislature 361k181 In General 361k181(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Statutes 361 184 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k180 Intention of Legislature 361k184 k. Policy and Purpose of Act. Most Cited Cases Prime objective in interpreting a statute is to ascer- tain the intention of the enacting body so as to ef- fectuate the purpose of the law. [5] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 412.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat- ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(C) Rules and Regulations 15Ak412 Construction 15Ak412.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 15Ak412) Generally, the same rules of construction applicable to statutes govern interpretation of rules and regula- tions of administrative bodies. [6] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 413 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat- ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(C) Rules and Regulations 15Ak412 Construction 15Ak413 k. Administrative Construc- tion. Most Cited Cases Statutes 361 219(1) 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k213 Extrinsic Aids to Construction 361k219 Executive Construction 361k219(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Courts will respect the interpretation given a statute by the agency charged with its administration and, when the construction of an administrative regula- tion is in issue, administrative construction is ac- corded even greater deference. [7] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(1) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.16, 356Ak194) Requirement that prompt, definitive and final ad- ministrative action be taken within 90 days from date of request for hearing concerning AFDC bene- fits is to assure that person who qualifies for assist- ance or for an increase in the amount of benefits re- ceives his entitlement promptly; 90-day rule is de- signed to make the administrative hearing meaning- ful to needy persons for whom delay will mean great hardship. [8] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(2) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 2 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k180 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k181%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k181%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k181%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k180 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k184 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k184 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV%28C%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak412 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak412.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak412.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak412.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15AIV%28C%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak412 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=15Ak413 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=15Ak413 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361VI%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k213 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k219 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=361k219%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k219%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=361k219%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(2) k. Notice, Hearing and Administrative Review. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.17, 356Ak194) California’s statutory AFDC hearing procedure, as implemented by regulations, makes it mandatory that decision be rendered within 90 days of request for fair hearing and requires immediate implement- ation of the decision notwithstanding the fact that a local welfare agency may be granted a rehearing; granting of local welfare agency’s request for re- hearing will not postpone payment of benefits to a qualified recipient so that California rehearing pro- cedure permitting decision of rehearing to be made more than 90 days after original request for fair hearing does not conflict with federal regulation. West’s Ann.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553(d), 10950 et seq., 10960. [9] Mandamus 250 81 250 Mandamus 250II Subjects and Purposes of Relief 250II(B) Acts and Proceedings of Public Of- ficers and Boards and Municipalities 250k81 k. Meetings and Proceedings of Boards or Other Bodies. Most Cited Cases Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 194.16(1) 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AV Family, Parental, and Child Welfare As- sistance 356AV(A) Aid to Families with Dependent Children 356Ak194.16 Agencies and Proceedings 356Ak194.16(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak194.16, 356Ak194) Federal regulation requiring that final decision be rendered within 90 days of request for hearing con- cerning AFDC benefits mandates prompt adminis- trative action but does not foreclose late adminis- trative action; remedy for violation is a petition for writ of mandate to compel timely action and not to terminate the administrative process altogether. *112 **751 Community Legal Services of River- side County, Robert K. Miller and William D. Schuetz, Riverside, for petitioner and appellant. Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Edward M. Belasco and John H. Sanders, Deputy Attys. Gen., for re- spondent. OPINION TAMURA, Acting Presiding Justice. Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying her pe- tition for writ of mandate to compel respondent (director) to dismiss a scheduled rehearing after the director rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on a claim for alleged overpayment of Aid to Fam- ilies with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. The pertinent facts are as follows: Sometime before August 14, 1973, the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (county) notified petitioner of its intention to dis- continue payment of AFDC benefits to her and to seek recovery of alleged overpayments for the peri- od March 1971 through October 1972. Pursuant to petitioner’s written request filed August 14, 1973, a hearing *113 was held on February 7, 1974. Since petitioner had theretofore resigned from the pro- gram, the only matter considered at the hearing was the claim for overpayments. The referee rendered a proposed decision in favor of petitioner and the proposed decision was adopted by the director on May 14, 1974. On May 30, 1974, the county requested a rehearing. The request was granted and a rehearing was sched- uled for August 12, 1974, but upon petitioner’s re- quest it was continued to September 17, 1974. In the interim petitioner filed the instant mandate pro- ceeding. Following a hearing on the petition and answer, the court made findings and conclusions 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 3 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%282%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10950&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250II http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250II%28B%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=250k81 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=250k81 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AV%28A%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak194.16%281%29 and entered judgment denying the petition. For reasons to be stated, we have concluded that the judgment should be affirmed. [1] The United States Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare (HEW) has promulgated regula- tions prescribing standards for hearing procedures to be observed by state welfare agencies in the ad- ministration of the various federally assisted pro- grams under the Social Security Act. (45 C.F.R. 205.10. FN1) The specific regulation upon which petitioner relies in this appeal**752 provides: ‘Prompt, definitive, and final administrative action shall be taken within 90 days from the date of the request for a hearing.'(45 C.F.R. 205.10(a)(16).) FN1. As a condition of continued receipt of federal funds, states participating in fed- erally assisted programs under the Social Security Act must, of course, conform to federal regulations. ( Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 407, fn. 9, 408, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442; King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316-317, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118.) [2][3] Petitioner does not contend that the federal regulations proscribe any rehearing after an initial fair hearing decision has been made; her sole con- tention is that no rehearing may be held after 90 days have elapsed from the date of her request for a hearing. The contention rests on two assumptions: (1) The term ‘final administrative action’ as used in the federal regulation includes the completion of any rehearing authorized under state law and (2) the 90 day period is jurisdictional. Neither assumption is correct. [4][5][6] The prime objective in interpreting a stat- ute is to ascertain the intention of the enacting body so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. ( *114Philbrook v. Glodgett, 241 U.S. 707, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 1898, 44 L.Ed.2d 525; Bravo v. Cabell, 11 Cal.3d 834, 838, 114 Cal.Rptr. 618, 523 P.2d 658; Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal.3d 222, 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224.)Generally the same rules of construction ap- plicable to statutes govern the interpretation of rules and regulations of administrative bodies. ( Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn. v. Clark, 22 Cal.2d 287, 292, 140 P.2d 657; Intoximeters, Inc. v. Younger,53 Cal.App.3d 262, 270, 125 Cal.Rptr. 864. See Miller v. United States,294 U.S. 435, 438-439, 55 S.Ct. 440, 442, 79 L.Ed. 977.)It is also a familiar principle that courts respect the interpret- ation given a statute by the agency charged with its administration and when the construction of an ad- ministrative regulation is in issue, the administrat- ive construction is accorded even greater defer- ence. ( Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13 L.Ed.2d 616; Brubaker v. Morton, 9 Cir., 500 F.2d 200, 202.) [7] With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the federal regulation in question. The purpose of the 90 day regulation is to assure that a person who qualifies for assistance or for an increase in the amount of benefits receives his entitlement promptly. The 90 day rule is designed to make the administrative hearing meaningful to needy persons for whom delay will mean great hardship. ( King v. Martin, 21 Cal.App.3d 791, 795, 98 Cal.Rptr. 711; Nelson v. Sugarman, D.C., 361 F.Supp. 1132, 1137.) The California Legislature has established a fair hearing procedure which includes a provision au- thorizing the director to grant a rehearing to a party dissatisfied with a fair hearing decision. (Welf. & Inst.Code, ss 10950, et seq.FN2) In addition, pursu- ant to his authority to adopt regulations governing the administration of federally assisted programs under the Social Security Act (Welf. & Inst.Code, s 10553, subd. (d)), the director has adopted and pub- lished a Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) *115 which includes regulations pertaining to fair hearings. The regulations require all ‘fair hearing matters’ to be disposed of by ‘fair hearing decision’ within 90 days from the request for a ‘fair hearing’ (MPP s 22-056FN3), command immediate imple- 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 4 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134209&ReferencePosition=407 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134209&ReferencePosition=407 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134209 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970134209 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968103566 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129801&ReferencePosition=1898 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129801&ReferencePosition=1898 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974124657 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974124657 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973125229 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973125229 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1943114475 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1943114475 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104723 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104723 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104723 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1935124058&ReferencePosition=442 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1935124058&ReferencePosition=442 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125032 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1965125032 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974111356&ReferencePosition=202 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1974111356&ReferencePosition=202 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972107705&ReferencePosition=1137 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972107705&ReferencePosition=1137 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10950&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10950&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L mentation of fair hearing decisions**753 (MPP 22-027 FN4), and provide a procedure for rehear- ings (MPP 22-065).FN5 FN2.Welfare and Institutions Code section 10960 authorizing rehearings provides: ‘Within 30 days after receiving the pro- posed decision of a referee adopted by the director or a decision issued by the director himself, the affected county or applicant or recipient may file a request with the direct- or for a rehearing. The director shall im- mediately serve a copy of the request on the other party to the hearing and such oth- er party may within five days of the ser- vice file with the director a written state- ment supporting or objecting to the re- quest. The director shall grant or deny the request no earlier than the fifth nor later than the 15th working day after the receipt of the request. If the director grants the re- quest, the rehearing shall be conducted in the same manner and subject to the same time limits as the original hearing. If action is not taken by the director within the time allowed, the request shall be deemed denied.’ FN3. MPP section 22-056 provides: ‘All fair hearing matters will be set for hearing, heard, and disposed of by fair hearing decision within 90 days from the date of the request for fair hearing or, if the claimant has been provided a preliminary hearing, 90 days from the date of the pre- liminary hearing decision on the matter, except in those cases where the claimant withdraws or abandons his request for hearing, or the matter is continued for good cause. The overall time limits shall be extended only for the period of the con- tinuance.’ FN4. MPP section 22-027 provides: ‘1. Immediately upon receipt of notice of the decision (excepting decisions rendered in appeals by an adult child liable for con- tributions-see Section 22-027.3), the county shall comply with the decision and shall notify the Office of the Chief Referee by completing a compliance form issued by the State Department of Social Welfare or shall request a rehearing. If the decision is in favor of the claimant on the issue in- volved, but aid has not been paid by the county, the notice to the State shall include a complete statement of the new issues which resulted in further denial of aid. Such statement shall be prepared in the same form and fashion as the Basis of Ac- tion letter. ‘2. The office of the Chief Referee shall re- view the compliance statement to assure that the county has correctly complied with the decision. ‘3. Within 30 days after the mailing to the county welfare department and the adult child, of the decision in cases involving an adult child liable for contributions to a par- ent, and in the event the adult child has not complied with the decision, the county welfare department shall initiate, through the appropriate county officer or agency, the legal action that is necessary in order that the adult child shall comply with the decision within a reasonable period of time.’ FN5. MPP section 22-065 provides: ‘1. A request for rehearing must be filed in writing with the Office of the Chief Refer- ee within 30 days after the affected county or the recipient receives the proposed de- cision of the referee adopted by the Direct- or or a decision issued by the Director himself and must contain a statement or reasons therefor. 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 5 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10960&FindType=L ‘2. If the request for rehearing is to permit presentation of additional evidence, the re- quest shall: ‘.21 Describe the additional evidence; ‘.22 Show why it was not previously intro- duced; ‘.23 Explain its materiality. ‘3. The Director shall grant or deny the re- quest within 15 working days after it is filed with the Chief Referee. ‘4. If a request for a rehearing is granted, the Director may: ‘.41 Order reconsideration of the decision on the basis of the evidence in the record; ‘.42 Order the taking of additional evid- ence; ‘.43 Order an entire new hearing. ‘5. A decision issued upon a rehearing shall not be subject to further hearing. ‘6. When a request for rehearing is denied, the notice of denial shall contain a state- ment concerning the right to judicial re- view, and shall advise the client that, if the court decides the case in his favor, he will be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and the cost of suit.’ *116 [8] California’s statutory hearing procedure as implemented by the director’s regulations makes it mandatory that the director’s decision be rendered within 90 days of the request for the fair hearing ( King v. Martin, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d 791, 795, 98 Cal.Rptr. 711), and requires immediate implement- ation of the decision notwithstanding the fact that a local welfare agency may have been granted a re- hearing. ( Taylor v. McKay, 53 Cal.App.3d 644, 650-652, 126 Cal.Rptr. 204.)Thus, the granting of a local welfare agency’s request for a rehearing will not postpone the payment of benefits to a qualified recipient. California’s rehearing procedure thus does not conflict with the purpose of the 90 day rule. Petitioner nevertheless urges that the phrase ‘final administrative action’ as used in the federal regula- tion must be construed to include any rehearing au- thorized by state law. We are satisfied that it was not intended to be given that meaning. Applicable here is the familiar rule of statutory interpretation that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. ( Phil- brook v. Glodgett, supra, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 1898, quot- ing from Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 12 S.Ct. 511, 512, 36 L.Ed. 226.)Although an administrative rehearing is **754 literally a part of the administrative process, to interpret the phrase ‘final administrative action’ as including the completion of a state authorized re- hearing procedure would neither further the pur- pose of the regulation nor comport with the inten- tion of its promulgator. HEW has stated that it has always been the De- partment’s position that the words (‘final adminis- trative action’ utilized in 45 C.F.R. s 205.10(a)(11)FN6 ) refer to the mailing of the check or increased check, or to the notification of denial of assistance or increased assistance, as the case may be. ( Nelson v. Sugarman, supra, 361 F.Supp. 1132, 1137, quoting from HEW’s amicus brief in that case.) An administrative construction of an agency’s own regulation is ‘of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'( Udall v. Tallman, supra, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616.)The California fair hearing procedure as implemented by the director’s regulations and as interpreted by our courts is in conformity with HEW’s interpreta- tion of its 90 day regulation. Under California hear- ing procedures, the director has a mandatory duty to render his decision within 90 days. If the decision is in favor of a claimant, the decision must be imple- 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 6 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104758 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1975104758 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129801&ReferencePosition=1898 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1975129801&ReferencePosition=1898 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1892180072&ReferencePosition=512 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1892180072&ReferencePosition=512 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1892180072&ReferencePosition=512 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972107705&ReferencePosition=1137 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1972107705&ReferencePosition=1137 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965125032&ReferencePosition=801 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1965125032&ReferencePosition=801 mented *117 forthwith by the payment of benefits and if the decision is adverse, the claimant is promptly notified through a copy of the decision of the denial of benefits. These steps constitute ‘final administrative action’ according to the construction given that phrase by HEW. FN6. Since renumbered section 205.10(a)(16). Furthermore, the policy sought to be furthered by the 90 day rule would be thwarted rather than pro- moted if the federal regulation were interpreted to foreclose a rehearing after the expiration of 90 days from the initial request for a hearing. Such an inter- pretation would preclude the director from granting a rehearing to a claimant who may have been erro- neously denied benefits by a fair hearing decision. The claimant’s only legal recourse after the expira- tion of the 90 days would be to seek judicial review of the director’s decision. (Welf. & Inst.Code, s 10962.)The necessity of seeking judicial relief would undoubtedly deter many applicants from pur- suing their claims. Even when such relief is sought, the time required to obtain a judicial determination would in all likelihood involve far greater delay and hardship to the claimant than the pursuit of an ad- ministrative rehearing. FN7 FN7. Petitioner’s assertion that if rehear- ings are permitted after 90 days ‘there would be nothing to stop the welfare de- partment from again and again requesting rehearings as they continue to lose’ is in- correct. The director’s regulations specific- ally provide: ‘A decision issued upon a re- hearing shall not be subject to further hear- ing.'(MPP s 22-065.5.) Finally, as a practical matter, it would be unreason- able to construe the federal regulation as contem- plating completion of a rehearing within 90 days. The regulation originally allowed only 60 days within which to take ‘final administrative action.’ However, because states were unable to complete the fair hearing process within that period, it was extended to the present 90 days. Allowing reason- able time for the fair hearing process, a request for a rehearing, notice of the rehearing, the rehearing, and the rendition of a decision thereon, it would be unreasonable to require the rehearing process to be completed within 90 days from the date of the ini- tial request for a hearing. We are satisfied that HEW did not so intend. For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the scheduled rehearing in the case at bench is not viol- ative of the federal 90 day regulation. [9] While the foregoing is dispositive of this ap- peal, we add one final comment. Petitioner is not seeking an expeditious disposition of the *118 re- hearing; she is seeking a dismissal of the proceed- ing on the assumption that the 90 day period is jur- isdictional.**755 Even if the 90 day period were applicable, it would not follow that the director lacked jurisdiction to conduct the rehear- ing. Expiration of the 90 day period does not de- prive the director of jurisdiction to take otherwise proper action. (Cf. Henderling v. Carleson, 36 Cal.App.3d 561, 566, 111 Cal.Rptr. 612.)The 90 day rule mandates prompt administrative action but does not foreclose late administrative action. The remedy for a violation of the regulation is a petition for writ of mandate to compel the director to take timely action (see King v. Martin, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d 791, 98 Cal.Rptr. 711), not to terminate the administrative process altogether. The judgment is affirmed. KAUFMAN and McDANIEL, JJ., concur. Cal.App. 1976. Westfall v. Swoap 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 END OF DOCUMENT 58 Cal.App.3d 109 Page 7 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750 (Cite as: 58 Cal.App.3d 109, 129 Cal.Rptr. 750) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=45CFRS205.10&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000298&DocName=CAWIS10962&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1974103627 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=227&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971103767 ”

” United States District Court, N. D. California. Joyce YEE-LITT et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON et al., Defendants. No. C-71-2286 OJC. Jan. 17, 1973. Class action by welfare recipients against the Sec- retary of Health, Education and Welfare and the Director of the California Department of Social Welfare to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin federal and state regulations which permit the sum- mary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing. The Three-Judge District Court, Oliver J. Carter, J., held that where California regulations which permit summary termination of welfare be- nefits prior to hearing whenever the chief referee determines that the recipient’s appeal only raises is- sues of policy and no issue of fact or judgment worked to erroneously deny pretermination hear- ings to welfare recipients who have raised factual issues on appeal because of inherent difficulty in using the fact-policy distinction, the regulations denied welfare recipients due process. Order in accordance with opinion. Hamlin, Circuit Judge, concurred in part and dis- sented in part and filed opinion. West Headnotes [1] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 181 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AII Parties 170AII(D) Class Actions 170AII(D)3 Particular Classes Represen- ted 170Ak181 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Where all members of class of welfare recipients were governed by the same state regulations and statutes and were treated in similar manner by state welfare department, the representative parties would fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class and the class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impractical, action to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin federal and state reg- ulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing was properly maintainable as class action for purpose of securing injunctive relief. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 23(a), (b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.; West’s Ann.Cal.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553. [2] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2)) Where California regulations, which permit sum- mary termination of welfare benefits prior to hear- ing whenever the chief referee determines that the recipient’s appeal only raises issues of policy and raises no issue of fact or judgment, worked to erro- neously deny pretermination hearings to welfare re- cipients who have raised factual issues on appeal because of inherent difficulty in using the fact- policy distinction, the regulations denied due pro- cess to welfare recipients. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14; 42 U.S.C.A. 1983; West’s Ann.Cal.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553. [3] Social Security and Public Welfare 356A 9.1 356A Social Security and Public Welfare 356AI In General 356Ak9 Awards and Payments 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 1 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AII%28D%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AII%28D%293 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak181 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR23&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR23&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356AI http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9 356Ak9.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 356Ak9, 356Ak8) The distinction between raising issues of fact and raising issues of policy in welfare recipient’s appeal in welfare termination case may not be used by the state to make the critical determination of whether welfare aid will be paid pending a hearing. West’s Ann.Cal.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553. [4] Constitutional Law 92 4116 92 Constitutional Law 92XXVII Due Process 92XXVII(G) Particular Issues and Applica- tions 92XXVII(G)5 Social Security, Welfare, and Other Public Payments 92k4116 k. Proceedings in General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 92k278.7(3), 92k318(2)) Evidence established that California regulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to hearing operated to deny minimum due process to a significant number of California welfare recipients who timely appeal from notices of termination or reduction from benefits. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14; 42 U.S.C.A. 1983; West’s Ann.Cal.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553. [5] Federal Courts 170B 228 170B Federal Courts 170BIII Federal Question Jurisdiction 170BIII(C) Cases Arising Under Laws of the United States 170Bk219 Civil Rights and Elective Fran- chise, Laws Relating to 170Bk228 k. Welfare Rights. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 106k262.4(2)) Where California regulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing operated so as to deny minimum due pro- cess to significant number of welfare recipients who timely appealed from notices of termination or reduction of benefits, further use of the regulations would immediately and irreparably harm each eli- gible recipient who was denied aid pending his timely appeal and there was strong possibility that welfare recipients would prevail at trial on the mer- its to have the regulations declared unconstitution- al, preliminary injunction would issue to enjoin the director of the California Department of Social Welfare from withholding, or continuing to with- hold, welfare assistance benefits from persons who have made or might make timely request for fair hearing. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14; 42 U.S.C.A. 1983; West’s Ann.Cal.Welfare & Inst.Code, 10553. [6] Federal Civil Procedure 170A 388 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AII Parties 170AII(J) Defects, Objections and Amend- ments 170Ak387 Misjoinder 170Ak388 k. Striking Out or Dropping Parties. Most Cited Cases Where federal statute under which California en- acted regulations which permit summary termina- tion of welfare benefits prior to a hearing was not challenged in welfare recipients’ class action for de- claratory and injunctive relief with respect to the state regulations, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare would be dismissed as party defendant. 28 U.S.C.A. 2282. *997 Armando M. Menocal III, Christopher N. May, San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assist- ance Foundation, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs. James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., Richard F. Locke, Asst. U. S. Atty., Evelle Younger, Atty. Gen. of Cal., David J. Bowie, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants. Before HAMLIN, Circuit Judge, and EAST and CARTER, District Judges. 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 2 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=356Ak9.1 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92XXVII%28G%295 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=92k4116 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170B http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170BIII%28C%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk219 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Bk228 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk228 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Bk228 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=USCOAMENDXIV&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170A http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AII http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170AII%28J%29 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak387 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/KeyNumber\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=170Ak388 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Digest\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=170Ak388 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2282&FindType=L MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OLIVER J. CARTER, District Judge. Plaintiffs filed this action to declare unconstitution- al and to enjoin federal and state regulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing. The Federal Defendant is Elliot L. Richardson, the then Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Wel- fare, responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act’s categorical assistance programs. The State Defendant is Robert B. Carleson, Director of the California State Department of Social Welfare, the agency which administers California’s categor- ical assistance programs. Jurisdiction for this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. 2281, 2284. This action is also brought under 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) and (4), 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. [1] Plaintiffs have brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other California recipients under the categorical assistance programs of the Social Security Act, and all persons whose assistance un- der these programs has been *998 reduced or ter- minated pending appeal since September 3, 1971, notwithstanding their timely request for a fair hear- ing. The Court finds that this class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. All members of the class are governed by the same California regulations and statutes and therefore are treated in a similar manner by the State defendants. The Court further finds on the basis of the hearings heretofore held, that the representative parties herein will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this action is properly maintainable as a class action for the purpose of securing injunctive relief.F.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The California regulations being challenged, Title 22 Cal.Admin.Code 22022.3 issued pursuant to California’s Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10553, permit the reduction or termination of wel- fare benefits prior to a hearing. Whenever the Chief RefereeFN1 determines that the recipient’s appeal only raises issues of policy and no issue of fact or judgment in the individual’s case, aid is not paid pending the fair hearing. Plaintiffs also challenge the federal regulation, 45 C.F.R. 210.10(a)5, which allows the State to implement this fact-policy system of distinguishing among timely appeals. Plaintiffs’ contention is that whenever a timely ap- peal is made, minimum standards of due process re- quire a hearing prior to reduction or termination of benefits. The hearing must meet the minimum due process standard as explained in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970). FN1. The Chief Reference to the State offi- cial who makes the final determination as to whether aid will be paid pending appeal. The plaintiffs have set forth three theories as basis for the relief they seek. The first theory is that due process requires an opportunity for a hearing in all cases prior to termination or reduction of welfare benefits. Plaintiffs next contend that requiring a welfare recipient to plead facts on appeal places an unfair burden on a class of people unable to sustain that burden thereby depriving them of their right to a hearing. And finally, plaintiffs argue that the fact- policy distinction is so vague and lacking in stand- ards that arbitrary decisions by the Chief Referee are commonplace thereby depriving recipients of a hearing in violation of their due process rights. In reply, the State contends that there is no constitu- tional right to a prior hearing in all cases and that the alleged pleading burden and alleged arbitrary decisions have been remedied by recently imple- mented state regulations. Without doubt the landmark decision in the area of welfare hearings is Goldberg v. Kelly, supra. The opinion set out the minimum due process require- ments for welfare recipients prior to termination of benefits. The Court said that due process requires a hearing prior to termination when the recipient makes a timely request to be heard. However, the present action raises a point not decided in Gold- 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 3 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2281&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2284&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS1343&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2201&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2202&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=42USCAS1983&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR23&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1004365&DocName=USFRCPR23&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000228&DocName=CAWIS10553&FindType=L berg. The welfare recipients in Goldberg chal- lenged the State’s determination of factual issues. Accordingly, the Supreme Court made no comment on the rights of welfare recipients whose appeals raised only policy issues. Following the decision in Goldberg, the regulations involved here were im- plemented inferentially on the assumption that the Supreme Court had approved of pre-hearing termin- ations where only policy issues were raised. The defendants have cited several opinions which state in part that evidentiary hearings are needed only where factual contentions are raised. See e. g. Provost v. Betit, 326 F.Supp. 920 (D.Vt.1971); Russo v. Kirby, 453 F.2d 548 (2 Cir., 1971); Con- necticut State Dept. of Public Welfare v. H. E. W. et al., 448 F.2d 209 (2 Cir. 1971). These decisions, although not on point with the facts of this action, support defendants’ position that no prior hearing is required by due process where no facts are in dis- pute. Prior to convening this three judge Court, a tempor- ary restraining order *999 (T.R.O.) was made by Chief United States District Judge Oliver J. Carter, which prevented any pre-hearing terminations or reductions of welfare recipients who had filed timely appeals. At the first hearing before this Court, the State moved to modify the T.R.O. The State argued that by implementing new regulations- the ones now in issue-they would relieve recipients from the alleged pleading burden. Defendants also contended that the new regulations would give the Chief Referee more information with which to de- cide whether questions of fact or judgment were raised by the recipient’s appeal. Since the Supreme Court had instructed lower courts to allow agencies to solve their problems if possible, this Court agreed to allow implementation of the new regula- tions. See Richardson v. Wright, 405 U.S. 208, 92 S.Ct. 788, 31 L.Ed.2d 151 (1972). The Court acted because of the close legal question presented con- cerning the validity of the fact-policy distinction; because the regulations might lift what appeared to be a pleading burden on the welfare recipients and because the regulations might prevent erroneous decisions thereby demonstrating the viability of the fact-policy distinction. The concept underlying the new regulations is that additional contact by the county worker with the re- cipient produces more information with which the Chief Referee makes a more informed decision. These regulations have now been in effect since March 16, 1972, pursuant to this Court’s order. At the latest hearing, September 28, 1972, argument was heard concerning how the regulations had worked and the effect if any upon plaintiffs’ three claims. At the close of the hearing, plaintiffs re- newed their motion for a preliminary injunction, the State defendant renewed his motion for summary judgment, and the Federal defendant renewed his motion to dismiss. [2] Plaintiffs’ challenge to the State regulations is that they are per se unconstitutional or alternatively that they are unconstitutional in effect. After re- viewing all the briefs, including regular statistical reports on the effect of the new regulations, the Court concludes that the regulations deny welfare recipients due process according to Goldberg v. Kelly, supra.The Court finds that the regulations work to erroneously deny pre-termination hearings to welfare recipients who have raised factual issues on appeal. For the reasons given below, the Court concludes that new regulations would probably not remedy the errors because of the inherent diffi- culties in using this fact-policy distinction. Before modifying the T.R.O. the Court was satis- fied that the proposed regulations would be as ef- fective as possible. In part the Court was satisfied by the State’s assurances that there was no lack of standards in using the fact-policy system, but that there was merely a lack of information for the de- cision maker. The State also strongly claimed that the regulations would relieve the burden on a recip- ient to plead facts in his request for a hearing. Be- cause this Court was satisfied that the regulations would work as described, the T.R.O. was modified. Several months after the T.R.O. was modified the 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 4 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971105319 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971113992 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971112296 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971112296 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1971112296 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127073 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127073 effectiveness of these regulations was challenged. On the basis of the information presented at the hearing of September 28, 1972, the Court concludes that the regulations did not work as planned. In at least two areas recipients were erroneously denied hearings prior to termination or reduction. The first type of erroneous denial can best be clas- sified as mistakes. The Court realizes that no regu- latory system can be foolproof; however, any court is constrained to try to minimize mistakes in the welfare area. As the Supreme Court said in Gold- berg at page 264 of 397 U.S., at page 1018 of 90 S.Ct., For qualified recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care…. Thus the crucial factor in this context- … -is that termination of aid pending resol- ution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means *1000 by which to live while he waits. (Footnote and citation omitted) Although the Court does not know the number of these admitted mistakes, there were sev- eral presented by the plaintiffs as examples.FN2 The only way the Court can be sure that similar mistakes will not recur is to pay aid pending in all cases where timely appeals are filed. FN2. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memor- andum, filed September 21, 1972, Exhibit B. The second area of erroneous pre-hearing termina- tions arises from what appears to be the State’s mis- use of these regulations. During the period these new regulations have been in effect, thousands of California welfare recipients had their aid reduced as the result of a newly effective welfare code sec- tion (not here in issue). See Villa v. Hall, 7 Cal.3d 926, 103 Cal.Rptr. 863, 500 P.2d 887 (1972). Al- though many of these recipients filed timely notice of appeal from the reductions, they were still re- duced or terminated from benefits prior to any hear- ing. In the examples presented to this Court, it ap- pears that many of these recipients raised what ap- peared to be factual issues yet still did not receive aid pending a hearing. [See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum filed September 21, 1972, Exhibit B]. The State explains this apparent inconsistency with the new regulations by saying that these recip- ients only raised policy issues. The State argues that because the Chief Referee had sufficient factu- al information in each case, he was sure that the de- cision to terminate or reduce was correct. Therefore since the decision to terminate or reduce was factu- ally correct, the recipient could only be raising a policy challenge concerning the implementation of the new code section. When the Court modified the T.R.O., it did not foresee that the regulations could be used in this way. This is not to say that the State has purpose- fully misused the regulations or misled the Court. However, the Court does find that this episode vividly demonstrates the danger of making critical decisions concerning the eligibility of welfare re- cipients on the basis of the fact-policy distinction. Again quoting from Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at page 266, 90 S.Ct. at page 1019, where the court was quoting from the lower court decision in that case, ‘[t]he stakes are simply too high for the wel- fare recipient, and the possibility of honest error or irritable misjudgment too great, to allow termina- tion of aid without giving the recipient a chance, if he so desires, to be fully informed of the case against him so that he may contest its basis and pro- duce evidence in rebuttal. ‘ [3] On the basis of the evidence to date, this Court concludes that the fact-policy distinction is not vi- able in the welfare context for making the critical determination of whether aid will be paid pending a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reached a similar conclu- sion, Mother’s and Children’s Rights Organization et al. v. Sterrett et al., 467 F.2d 797 (7 Cir., 1972). Also see Woodson v. Houston, 27 Mich.App. 239, 183 N.W.2d 465 (1970). Conclusion [4] When the Supreme Court fashioned the minim- 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 5 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1018 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1018 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1018 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1018 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972125458 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=661&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972125458 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1019 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1970134198&ReferencePosition=1019 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972112219 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972112219 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=595&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970126560 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=595&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970126560 um due process standards for terminating welfare recipients, it was doing so in the context of a factu- al appeal. The defendants have interpreted Gold- berg to allow separate treatment for recipients whose appeals do not raise issues of fact or judg- ment. However, implementation of this policy of distinguishing factual from policy appeals has res- ulted in the improper denial of aid pending for sig- nificant numbers of welfare recipients. These im- properly terminated recipients raised factual issues on their timely appeals yet did not receive aid pending in violation of Goldberg v. Kelly.The Court concludes that the State even when using its best effort with seemingly innovative regulations, cannot operate the fact-policy system without many erroneous decisions. *1001 The Court further con- cludes that the fault does not lie with the State, but rather with the unclear and unmanageable fact- policy distinction which the regulations have cre- ated. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the state regulations in issue deny minimum due pro- cess to a significant number of California welfare recipients who timely appeal from notices of ter- mination or reduction from benefits. [5] Having found that the state regulations work a denial of due process on plaintiffs, the Court con- cludes that a preliminary injunction should issue. Further use of these regulations would immediately and irreparably harm each eligible recipient who is denied aid pending his timely appeal. The Goldberg decision militates against any further delay in en- joining the regulation, as there is a strong possibil- ity that plaintiffs will prevail at a trial on the merits. Accordingly, it is ordered that defendant Robert B. Carleson is preliminarily enjoined, pending the fur- ther order of this Court, from withholding, or con- tinuing to withhold, welfare assistance benefits pur- suant to Title 22, Cal.Admin.Code 22-022.3 from persons who have made or may make a timely re- quest for a fair hearing. It is further ordered that the State defendant’s mo- tion for summary judgment, be, and the same is, hereby denied. [6] It is further ordered that the Federal defendant’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, hereby gran- ted without prejudice,FN3 and said defendant is hereby dismissed. FN3. The Federal defendant’s motion to dismiss is made on the basis that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction and venue. The Court concludes that this argument is in- correct for the reasons given in Macias v. Finch, 324 F.Supp. 1252 (N.D.Cal.1971). However, because the federal statute al- lowing the state regulation here in issue has not been challenged under 28 U.S.C. 2282, the Court concludes that it would be inappropriate to examine into or make an order respecting that statute. Therefore, no purpose is currently served by the retaining of the Federal defendant in this action. HAMLIN, Circuit Judge (concurring and dissent- ing): I respectfully dissent from that portion of the ma- jority order which grants broad injunctive relief against defendant Carleson. The majority objects to the challenged regulations because of errors com- mitted by welfare administrators in determining whether a fair hearing request raises issues of fact or policy. While it might be that the regulations in question do not guarantee that no mistakes will be made, they are designed to, and reasonably do, provide aid pending fair hearings where factual matters are in dispute. This seems to be all that is required by Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970). Defendant’s affidavits controvert the implication that the present system produces an excessive num- ber of inequities and indicate that errors have been kept to a very small percentage.FN1 Certainly er- rors are inherent in any very large scale adminis- trative undertaking and I would expect that the de- fendant would use every effort to reduce even the small percentage now existing. FN1. From the thousands of fair hearing requests filed monthly (4,090 requests 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 6 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970115960 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=345&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1970115960 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2282&FindType=L http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2282&FindType=L were filed in October, 1972, alone) plaintiffs have submitted a list of 49 cases where welfare recipients have allegedly been erroneously denied aid pending a hearing. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memor- andum, September 21, 1972. But only five such cases involve errors in administering the fact-policy distinction. Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum, September 28, 1972. As Judge Learned Hand has stated, … due process of law does not mean infallible process of law. Schechtman v. Foster, 172 F.2d 339, 341 (2nd Cir. 1949). The record is devoid of any evidence of lack of good faith in the administration of the regulations. As indicated above, I would not grant the sought- for injunction. D.C.Cal., 1973. Yee-Litt v. Richardson 353 F.Supp. 996 END OF DOCUMENT 353 F.Supp. 996 Page 7 353 F.Supp. 996 (Cite as: 353 F.Supp. 996) \u00a9 2008 Thomson Reuters\/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949122322&ReferencePosition=341 http:\/\/www.westlaw.com\/Find\/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1949122322&ReferencePosition=341 ”