Documents

” 2020 SCHEDULE WEEK #1 Window Period Hearing Week 10\/25\/19 11\/21\/19 12\/16\/2019 11\/22\/19 12\/19\/19 01\/13\/2020 12\/20\/19 01\/16\/20 02\/10\/2020 01\/17\/20 02\/13\/20 03\/09\/2020 02\/14\/20 03\/12\/20 04\/06\/2020 03\/13\/20 04\/09\/20 05\/04\/2020 04\/10\/20 05\/07\/20 06\/01\/2020 05\/08\/20 06\/04\/20 06\/29\/2020 06\/05\/20 07\/02\/20 07\/27\/2020 07\/03\/20 07\/30\/20 08\/24\/2020 07\/31\/20 08\/27\/20 09\/21\/2020 08\/28\/20 09\/24\/20 10\/19\/2020 09\/25\/20 10\/22\/20 11\/16\/2020 10\/23\/20 11\/19\/20 12\/14\/2020 11\/20\/20 12\/17\/20 01\/11\/2021 12\/18\/20 01\/14\/21 02\/08\/2021 01\/15\/21 2\/11\/21 03\/08\/2021 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alpine (02) Mono (26) Solano (48) Calaveras (05) Nevada (29) Sonoma (49) Del Norte (08) Riverside (non-IHSS)* (33) Sutter (51) Fresno* (10) San Bernardino* (36) Trinity (53) Inyo (14) San Francisco (38) Tuolumne (55) Los Angeles (19) San Mateo (41) Yolo (57) Marin (21) Santa Barbara (42) Scopes (62) Mendocino (23) Shasta (45) Modoc (25) Sierra (46) *County scheduled twice per month ~Window Period is only a general guideline not an exact cutoff date~ 2020 SCHEDULE WEEK #2 Window Period Hearing Week 11\/01\/19 11\/28\/19 12\/23\/2019 11\/29\/19 12\/26\/19 01\/20\/2020 12\/27\/19 01\/23\/20 02\/17\/2020 01\/24\/20 02\/20\/20 03\/16\/2020 02\/21\/20 03\/19\/20 04\/13\/2020 03\/20\/20 04\/16\/20 05\/11\/2020 04\/17\/20 05\/14\/20 06\/08\/2020 05\/15\/20 06\/11\/20 07\/06\/2020 06\/12\/20 07\/09\/20 08\/03\/2020 07\/10\/20 08\/06\/20 08\/31\/2020 08\/07\/20 09\/03\/20 09\/28\/2020 09\/04\/20 10\/01\/20 10\/26\/2020 10\/02\/20 10\/29\/20 11\/23\/2020 10\/30\/20 11\/26\/20 12\/21\/2020 11\/27\/20 12\/24\/20 01\/18\/2021 12\/25\/20 01\/21\/21 02\/15\/2021 01\/22\/21 02\/18\/21 03\/15\/2021 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Humboldt (12) San Luis Obispo (40) Los Angeles (19) Santa Clara (43) Sacramento (34) Ventura (56) San Diego* (37) Scopes (62) *County scheduled twice per month ~Window Period is only a general guideline not an exact cutoff date~ 2020 SCHEDULE WEEK #3 Window Period Hearing Week 10\/11\/19 11\/07\/19 12\/02\/2019 11\/08\/19 12\/05\/19 12\/30\/2019 12\/06\/19 01\/02\/20 01\/27\/2020 01\/03\/20 01\/30\/20 02\/24\/2020 01\/31\/20 02\/27\/20 03\/23\/2020 02\/28\/20 03\/26\/20 04\/20\/2020 03\/27\/20 04\/23\/20 05\/18\/2020 04\/24\/20 05\/21\/20 06\/15\/2020 05\/22\/20 06\/18\/20 07\/13\/2020 06\/19\/20 07\/16\/20 08\/10\/2020 07\/17\/20 08\/13\/20 09\/07\/2020 08\/14\/20 09\/10\/20 10\/05\/2020 09\/11\/20 10\/08\/20 11\/02\/2020 10\/09\/20 11\/05\/20 11\/30\/2020 11\/06\/20 12\/03\/20 12\/28\/2020 12\/04\/20 12\/31\/20 01\/25\/2021 01\/01\/21 01\/28\/21 02\/22\/2021 01\/29\/21 02\/25\/21 03\/22\/2021 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Alameda (01) Orange (30) Butte (04) Riverside (IHSS)* (33) Fresno* (10) San Bernardino (36) Imperial (13) Santa Cruz (44) Los Angeles (19) Stanislaus (50) Merced (24) Yuba (58) Monterey (27) Scopes (62) *County scheduled twice per month ~Window Period is only a general guideline not an exact cutoff date~ 2020 SCHEDULE WEEK #4 Window Period Hearing Week 10\/18\/19 11\/14\/19 12\/09\/2019 11\/15\/19 12\/12\/19 01\/06\/2020 12\/13\/19 01\/09\/20 02\/03\/2020 01\/10\/20 02\/06\/20 03\/02\/2020 02\/07\/20 03\/05\/20 03\/30\/2020 03\/06\/20 04\/02\/20 04\/27\/2020 04\/03\/20 04\/30\/20 05\/25\/2020 05\/01\/20 05\/28\/20 06\/22\/2020 05\/29\/20 06\/25\/20 07\/20\/2020 06\/26\/20 07\/23\/20 08\/17\/2020 07\/24\/20 08\/20\/20 09\/14\/2020 08\/21\/20 09\/17\/20 10\/12\/2020 09\/18\/20 10\/15\/20 11\/09\/2020 10\/16\/20 11\/12\/20 12\/07\/2020 11\/13\/20 12\/10\/20 01\/04\/2021 12\/11\/20 01\/07\/21 02\/01\/2021 01\/08\/21 02\/04\/21 03\/01\/2021 COUNTIES SCHEDULED THIS WEEK Amador (03) Los Angeles (19) San Benito (35) Colusa (06) Lassen (18) San Diego * (37) Contra Costa (07) Madera (20) San Joaquin (39) El Dorado (09) Mariposa (22) Siskiyou (47) Glenn (11) Napa (28) Tehama (52) Kern (15) Orange (30) Tulare (54) Kings (16) Placer (31) Scopes (62) Lake (17) Plumas (32) *County scheduled twice per month ~Window Period is only a general guideline not an exact cutoff date~ CDSS State Hearings Division Report corrections to Dina: 916.309.3365 ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/2258): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” January 3, 2014 ALL COUNTY INFORMATION NO. I-02-14 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ALL CalWORKs PROGRAM SPECIALISTS ALL CALFRESH PROGRAM SPECIALISTS ALL COUNTY REFUGEE COORDINATORS ALL COUNTY CONSORTIUM PROJECT MANAGERS SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA WORK OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO KIDS (CalWORKs) PROGRAM: REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATE NOTICES REFERENCES: CONFIDENTIALITY, FRAUD, CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE HEARINGS MANUAL OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES (MPP) SECTIONS 22-001 AND 22-071 TURNER v. MCMAHON, AND ALL COUNTY INFORMATION NOTICE (ACIN) NO. I-151-82 The purpose of this ACIN is to emphasize to County Welfare Departments (CWDs) the importance of providing adequate Notices of Action (NOAs) to CalWORKs applicants and recipients, and to remind them of the elements needed for a NOA to be considered adequate. Adequate notices are required so the applicant or recipient has sufficient information to understand the action that is being taken on their application or CalWORKs case. In 1983, the Turner v. McMahon consent decree set the rules (often referred to as Turner rules ) that are used to develop adequate NOAs. The Confidentiality, Fraud, Civil Rights and State Hearings Division Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 22- 001(a)(1) describes adequate NOAs as 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 CalWORKs Program, if the county action is upheld, that the aid paid pending must be repaid. REASON FOR THIS TRANSMITTAL s [ ] State Law Change [ ] Federal Law or Regulation Change [ ] Court Order [ ] Clarification Requested by [ ] One or More Counties [X] Initiated by CDSS ] Initiated by CDSS ACIN NO. I-02-14 Page Two Key Concepts In many cases, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) provides the language to be used for NOAs. The printed NOA forms are designed for specific types of action that will help the county worker provide adequate notice. In addition to filling in the appropriate blanks and checking the appropriate boxes on the NOA, the worker must assure that the notice is adequate. Every NOA sent must meet certain baseline criteria in addition to the regulatory definition in order to be adequate. Here are some key concepts to consider when creating NOAs for applicants and recipients. The nature of what is said in the NOA is the central issue. The NOA is intended to be a personal communication to the applicant or recipient (client), addressing the client’s unique circumstances and resulting CWD action to the client’s cash aid. The NOA must provide specific information regarding items such as the amount of the family’s cash aid and how it was calculated, reasons the aid amount changed, whose income was used to calculate the new grant amount, what income was used in the calculation, and\/or other circumstances that may be causing the family’s aid to be discontinued or changed. In addition, each NOA must include client-specific information that is sufficient enough for the client to determine what the issue is, be able to understand the action taken, and decide if a request for a hearing is warranted. The worker should take the following into consideration to ensure the NOA is adequate under the guidelines provided in this letter and at MPP Sections 22-001 and 22-071: What does the client need to know to understand what is happening and why? Does the information provided enable the client to decide if he or she agrees or disagrees with the CWD’s proposed action? Can the client understand if there is something he or she needs to do in response to the NOA to stop or change the CWD’s proposed action? Examples of client-specific information include, but are not limited to, the following: Effective date of action. Assistance Unit (AU) or household member affected. Source\/nature of income or property used in the action. Amount of income\/property and the time period involved. Time On Aid (TOA) calculations Reason for the Welfare to Work (WTW) supportive services action. The recipient should be informed of what facts were used, including the detail of computations affecting the amount of aid. ACIN I-151-82 provides examples of how CWDs can list the reason for the action so that the rule, the facts, and the application of the facts to the rule are adequately explained. ACIN NO. I-02-14 Page Three When utilizing drop down menus in automation systems that provide non-case specific summaries, the use of fillable note or free form fields to enter the case specifics is recommended, and completion of these fields should be required of workers. CDSS suggests that the CWD\/Consortia can take steps to ensure NOAs include sufficient, adequate information by preventing a NOA from being printed or mailed if the fields are not completed. Automation systems should not permit the batch mailing (i.e. without review) of incomplete notices. On review, the CWD must ensure that sufficient case- specific information is provided prior to sending the NOA. If the automation programming does not provide for all of the information for the NOA to provide adequate information, the needed information should be hand-completed by the worker who is taking the case action to meet the requirement that the NOA contain case specific information to the client. Readability Turner rules require that all NOAs be written at a 6th grade level in order to be understandable. Tips to ensuring a NOA is easily understood include the following guidelines: a. Use short, direct sentences; b. Use simple words that the client can reasonably be expected to understand; c. Avoid multi-syllable words and acronyms as often as possible; d. Avoid compound sentences or combined reasons by breaking them into two sentences; e. Explain complicated ideas. Language and Disability Access CWDs are reminded that the client must be given the opportunity to choose the language to be used for their notices, and the CWD must document the client’s language choice. The language preference document, if in English, must include a notation of the name\/worker number of the person who provided the interpretation of the form. If the CWD or CDSS does not have NOAs translated into the client’s preferred language, the CWD must explain that the NOAs will be issued in English, and that an interpreter will be provided at no cost to the client. In addition, If there is no CDSS translation and the CWD has not elected to translate the NOA, the English NOA must be sent to the client with a GEN 1365-Notice of Language Services (described later in this letter.) The CWD must also provide a current telephone number and instructions on how to get an oral interpretation of the NOA, without a delay. CWDs may also choose to have NOAs translated into languages not provided by the CDSS. If CDSS has not provided the translation, the CWD must ensure that effective bilingual services are provided. This requirement may be met through utilization of paid interpreters, qualified bilingual http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/Multi\/GEN1365MUL.pdf ACIN NO. I-02-14 Page Four employees, and qualified employees of other agencies or community resources. These services shall be provided free of charge to the client. Clients may use their own interpreter, but must not be compelled or encouraged to do so. The CWD should confirm that the self-provided interpreter is competent and should be a person who is of adult age, 18 years of age or older. The CWD should only allow a minor to act as a temporary interpreter under extenuating circumstances or at the request of the client. See All County Letter 08-65 for more information about using self- provided interpreters. If CDSS has translated the NOA, the translated version must be sent, regardless of the size of that language population within the county. Thereafter, all NOAs are to be sent in that language, if translated by CDSS. If there is no CDSS translation and the county has not elected to translate the NOA, the English NOA is to be sent with the GEN 1365- Notice of Language Services. MPP 21-115.16 requires the CWD to either provide the NOA in the client’s preferred language or to provide an interpreter if CDSS does not supply a NOA in that language. The GEN 1365 includes a statement in 16 different languages that instructs clients to call the CWD if they need help understanding the NOA they received and includes a local telephone number for requesting interpretive services at no charge to the client. The Confidentiality, Fraud, Civil Rights and State Hearings Division MPP 22-001(l)(1) sets out the requirements for a NOA to be language compliant. For translated NOAs, the fill-in portion of the NOA must also be in the language of the notice, including the informing notice on the reverse side (NA Back 9) (MPP 21-115.2). In regards to clients who have literacy or learning disability issues that interfere with their ability to read or understand written instructions, the CWD must flag the case as requiring reasonable accommodation, and provide the accommodations when sending out a NOA. This can include but is not limited to a message on the NOA to call the CWD if the client has any questions, provide a follow up call to advise the client of the county action, to call the CWD for an oral explanation if he\/she receives paperwork, or for the visually impaired clients, sending the notice in large print. Specific Regulations As explained in ACIN I-151-82, the body or text portion of a NOA must explain the essence of the rule (in addition to the reason why the action is being taken). For example, the income eligibility rule at MPP 44-207.2 is that the family’s countable income must be below the Maximum Aid Payment for their family size. The essence of this rule, which must be explained in the body of the NOA in text, is income, unless it is a type that we do not count against your grant, must be below the grant level for your family size in order to be eligible. The specific facts would go on to say what income the family has, why the CWD is using a different amount from what the client reported, whether any of the income may have been excluded and why, and how the grant was calculated. http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/Multi\/GEN1365MUL.pdf http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/Multi\/GEN1365MUL.pdf ACIN NO. I-02-14 Page Five The NOA must also list the specific regulations that support the CWD’s action. While CWDs can include a citation to the general regulatory section (such as income), it must also include the specific citations to the regulations that apply in this specific case action. For example, NOAs regarding case actions based on income, must also include a specific citation that covers the type of income used in the grant calculation and any other regulations used to support the action taken by the CWD (e.g. Manual of Policies and Procedures Section 44-111 if excluding any income.) Checklist CWDs can use the following checklist to test the adequacy of a NOA. Though individual elements of the NOA can be tested with the questions below, the ultimate test is whether the NOA, as a whole, clearly provides the recipient with the information he\/she needs as described above. Effective date shown? Description of the action complete? Amount of the aid payment shown? Reason for the action given? Basis in state regulation described? Cited? Family’s circumstances that caused action shown? All pertinent computations provided in adequate detail and specifically identified with the persons to whom they pertain? Statement of information needed to reestablish eligibility or determine the correct amount of aid? (Use when pertinent.) Denials and discontinuances: Standard child support and family planning statements provided? Entire notice complete with adequate detail? Language clear and understandable? If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact your assigned CalWORKs County Consultant or call the CalWORKs Eligibility Bureau main line at (916) 654-1322. Sincerely, Original Document Signed By: K\u00c4REN DICKERSON, Chief Employment and Eligibility Branch c: CWDA CSAC ”

” ”

{“error”:”PDF Processor error: Empty attachment file. Is the file publicly available? Server error: fopen(https:\/\/www.ccwro.org\/~documents\/route%3A\/download\/1660): failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP\/1.1 404 Not Found “}

” STATE OF CALIFORNIA\u2014HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 744 P Street, Sacramento, California 95814 July 31, 1998 ALL-COUNTY LETTER NO. 98-58 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ALL COUNTY WELFARE-TO-WORK COORDINATORS ALL COUNTY CalWORKs PROGRAM SPECIALISTS ALL COUNTY APPEAL SUPERVISORS SUBJECT: COUNTY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This letter is to transmit information and guidance regarding county responsibility for developing and documenting county policies and procedures and presenting them at state hearings. County Policy Development CalWORKs legislation (AB 1542 Chapter 270, Statutes of 1997) provides counties with increased flexibility to design and implement welfare-to-work programs that are best suited to the needs of the clientele being served, the resources available, and local labor market conditions. AB 1542 and CalWORKs regulations issued by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) provide counties with a number of options for designing their welfare- to-work programs and developing standards and criteria to determine issues such as: Eligibility for lump sum diversion services and repayment procedures for diversion benefits; The range of welfare-to-work activities that will be offered by the county welfare department (CWD); The hours of work participation required of the adult in a one parent family; Exemption from work participation requirements based on providing care to a child under six months of age (may be reduced to 12 weeks of age or increased to 12 months of age); and Verification standards for regular school attendance. REASON FOR THIS TRANSMITTAL [ ] State Law Change [ ] Federal Law or Regulation Change [ ] Court Order [ ] Clarification Requested by One or More Counties [X] Initiated by CDSS Page Two In some areas, CDSS has not adopted detailed regulations. The increased program flexibility allowed under CalWORKs requires that the counties take a greater responsibility for the development of standards and criteria that will be used to determine the benefits and services that individuals will receive. In order to assure uniform treatment within the county, we strongly recommend the development of written county policies and procedures. Written policies and procedures will ensure that both county staff and applicants for and recipients of aid have knowledge of applicable program rules. The county also will have evidence of its policies and procedures to present at state hearings. County Responsibilities at State Hearings: Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) are granted authority under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10950 to review any county action relating to an applicant’s application for or recipient’s receipt of public social services. This includes actions taken by the county in regard to welfare-to-work participation by CalWORKs recipients. At hearing, the ALJ will review the facts of the case that are in dispute and also determine if the county’s action is consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, CDSS policy guidelines, and\/or county policies. Therefore, in developing any local policies, counties must ensure that local policies, criteria, and procedures are consistent with existing statutes, regulations, and CDSS guidelines transmitted via All County Letter (ACL), All County Information Notice (ACIN), or any similar instrument. Additionally, counties should take appropriate steps to ensure that local policies and procedures are documented, communicated to staff, and applied in a uniform manner. When presenting the county’s position at a hearing, county staff should explain how and why its policies, criteria, and\/or procedures were applied in the particular case. To demonstrate that the county’s decisions are not, nor appear to be, arbitrary and capricious, the county should do the following: Cite the appropriate state rule (statute, regulation, ACL, or ACIN) that gives the county the authority to adopt and implement its own policies, criteria, or procedures. Explain how and why the county’s policies, criteria, and\/or procedures were applied in the particular case to be heard; and Provide documentation of the relevant policies, criteria, and\/or procedures to the ALJ. Relevant documentation may include, but is not limited to the specific written sections of the certified county plan, the county policies, the county training manuals that support the county action in the individual case, or any other documentation deemed relevant by the ALJ. For example, the county should introduce the following evidence in a case when the issue is the length of the exemption for care of an infant. Page Three \u00d8 Cite the appropriate state rule granting authority to the county to make its own determination regarding length of exemption for care of an infant. \u00d8 Cite and attach appropriate pages from the county plan that speaks to criteria for reducing or increasing the exemption period, on a case-by-case basis. \u00d8 Cite and attach the specific written policies and procedures that the county is following to support the reduced exemption. \u00d8 Explain how county policies or procedures apply to the claimant’s specific facts. Should a county not have any specific written policies or procedures entered as evidence in the hearing, the ALJ must reach a decision by applying the facts of the case to the relevant statute or regulation, without regard to county policy. If you have any questions regarding the development of county policies and procedures, please contact Charr Lee Metsker, Chief, Employment and Eligibility Branch, at (916) 657-2128. In regard to questions on state hearings, please contact Laurence H. Geller, Presiding Administrative Law Judge, Quality Improvement and Disability Hearings Bureau, at (916) 229-4064. Sincerely, Original Document Signed By Original Document Signed By Bruce Wagstaff on 7\/31\/98 John Castello on 7\/31\/98 BRUCE WAGSTAFF JOHN CASTELLO Deputy Director Chief, Administrative Law Judge Welfare to Work Division State Hearings Division ”

” State of California\u2014Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Care Services TOBY DOUGLAS EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Director Governor May 14, 2013 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS Letter No.: 13-13 ALL COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ALL COUNTY MEDI-CAL PROGRAM SPECIALISTS\/LIAISONS ALL COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES ALL COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH DIRECTORS SUBJECT: MEDI-CAL GENERAL NOTICE OF ACTION (NOA) POLICY (Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations Sections 431.206, 431.210, 431.211, 431.213 and 435.912, 435.919; Title 22 California Code of Regulations Sections 50015, 50179, 50179.5, 50179.7; All County Welfare Directors Letters 08-32 and 10-20) PURPOSE The purpose of this All County Welfare Directors Letter (ACWDL) is to provide counties with policy reminders regarding required Medi-Cal Notices of Action (NOA) relating to the counties’ eligibility determinations, including share-of-cost (SOC) calculations and scope of benefits. This letter does not address NOA requirements pertaining to approval or denial of specific Medi-Cal services or benefits. The intent of this letter is to provide general NOA regulation and policy reminders. The regulations and policy in this letter may possibly be affected or altered in the future due to changes resulting from the Affordable Care Act. NOA DEFINITION A Medi-Cal program NOA is used to give applicants and beneficiaries written notice of their Medi-Cal-only status. It provides notification of eligibility or ineligibility and of any changes made in eligibility status, level of benefits or SOC. (22 CCR 50179 (a)) Medi-Cal Eligibility Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, MS 4607, P.O. Box 997417, Sacramento, CA 95899-7417 (916) 552-9430 phone, (916) 552-9477 fax Internet Address: www.dhcs.ca.gov http:\/\/www.dhcs.ca.gov\/ All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 2 May 14, 2013 BACKGROUND In 2007, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) convened a NOA Workgroup to respond to concerns that were raised by applicants\/beneficiaries and advocacy groups regarding applicants and beneficiaries receiving multiple, confusing and conflicting NOAs, and NOAs sent in inappropriate languages. PREVIOUS GUIDANCE In July 2008, DHCS released ACWDL 08-32 requiring counties\/consortia to implement two interim measures recommended by the NOA Workgroup to eliminate multiple NOAs and to provide meaningful language access to limited English proficient (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries if the NOA is not available in their preferred language. Counties\/consortia were required to implement the following two interim measures, effective October 1, 2008: 1. Take any measures possible, without initiating automated systems changes, to stop sending NOAs for every program for which the applicant\/beneficiary has been evaluated and does not qualify and to instead send a single NOA informing beneficiaries of the final result of the eligibility determination. 2. Ensure LEP individuals are aware of the interpreter services for which they are entitled by sending a multilingual notification with all NOA mailings as an interim measure until NOAs are translated into threshold languages. In November 2010, DHCS released ACWDL 10-20 which provided examples and clarification on ACWDL 08-32. FEDERAL\/STATE REGULATIONS FOR THE NOA Federal and State regulations relating to Medi-Cal (Medicaid) NOAs have not changed. This paraphrased list serves only as a reminder of the requirements that are included in the federal and State NOA regulations. 1. The NOA must notify beneficiaries in writing of their Medi-Cal-only eligibility or ineligibility and of any changes made in their eligibility status or SOC. (22 CCR 50179 (a)) All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 3 May 14, 2013 2. The NOA must provide an applicant with written notice of the agency’s decision on his\/her application and, if eligibility is denied, the reasons for the action, the specific regulation supporting the action, and an explanation of his\/her right to request a hearing. (42 CFR 435.912) 3. The NOA shall be on a form prescribed by DHCS. (22 CCR 50179 (b)) 4. The NOA shall include the name and telephone number of the eligibility worker who completed the eligibility determination. (22 CCR 50179 (b)) 5. The NOA shall include the date the form was completed. (22 CCR 50179 (b)) 6. A copy of the NOA shall be placed in the case file. 1 (22 CCR 50179 (b)) 7. The NOA shall include the approval, denial or discontinuance of eligibility, the rescission of a denial or discontinuance, the change in the SOC and the effective date of the action. (22 CCR 50179 (c) (1)) 8. The NOA shall include the amount of the SOC, if any, and the amount of the net nonexempt income used to determine the SOC. (22 CCR 50179 (c) (2)) 9. The NOA shall include a statement of what action the State intends to take. (42 CFR 431.210(a)) 10. The NOA shall include the reasons an action is being taken and the law or regulations that require the action, if the action is a denial, discontinuance or increase in SOC. (42 CFR 431.210 (b) and (c)) (22 CCR 50179 (c) (3)) 11. The NOA shall include the right to request a State hearing. (42 CFR 431.206 (b) (1)) (42 CFR 431.210 (d) (1)) (22 CCR 50179 (c) (4)) 1 Please Note: DHCS interprets A copy of the NOA shall be placed in the case file to include an electronic case file. All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 4 May 14, 2013 12. The NOA shall explain, in cases of an action based on a change in law, the circumstances under which a hearing will be granted. (42 CFR 431.210 (d) (2)) 13. The NOA shall include the procedures for requesting a State hearing and the time limits within which a State hearing must be requested. (42 CFR 431.206 (b) (2), 22 CCR 50179 (c) (5)) 14. The NOA shall inform the applicant that he\/she may represent her\/himself or use legal counsel, a relative, a friend, or other spokesman. (42 CFR 431.206 (b) (3)) 15. The NOA shall include the circumstances under which aid will be continued if a State hearing is requested. (42 CFR 431.210) (22 CCR 50179 (c) (6)) 16. The NOA shall include a statement, when appropriate, regarding the information or action necessary to reestablish eligibility or determine a correct SOC. 2 (22 CCR 50179 (c) (7)) 17. The agency must give recipients timely and adequate notice of the proposed action to terminate, discontinue, or suspend their eligibility or to reduce or discontinue services they may receive under Medicaid. 3 (42 CFR 435.919) 18. The NOA shall be mailed for an adverse action at least 10 calendar days prior to the first of the month in which an adverse action becomes effective, excluding the date of mailing. (42 CFR 431.211) (22 CCR 50179 (d) (1)) 2 Please Note: DHCS interprets when appropriate to mean that such a statement is always required unless there is no possibility that eligibility could be reestablished or a SOC determined correctly. The NOA must be specific so that the applicant\/beneficiary knows exactly what must be provided to the county to determine Medi-Cal eligibility. Applicants\/Beneficiaries may have numerous bank accounts, life insurance policies, etc., and a generic statement to provide a ‘bank statement or life insurance policy’ is not adequate without additional identifying information. A denial NOA issued an applicant\/beneficiary who has not provided information requested and needed for the eligibility determination must specifically list the items that had been previously requested but not provided to be an adequate notice of action (example: XYZ Bank Statement for the month of ___). 3 Please note: DHCS interprets this to mean that the calculation of any SOC, premium, spousal income allocation, valuations and calculations resulting in a Community Spouse Resource Allowance, excess property, and any periods of ineligibility for payment of nursing facility level of care must be included in the notice or on worksheets attached to the notice to be an adequate notice of action.. All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 5 May 14, 2013 Adverse action means an action taken by a county department which discontinues Medi-Cal eligibility or increases a Medi-Cal Family Budget Unit’s (MFBU) SOC. (22 CCR 50015 (a)) 19. The NOA shall be mailed in sufficient time to reach the beneficiary by the effective date of the action for discontinuances or increases of the SOC that are not adverse actions. (42 CFR 431.213) (22 CCR 50179 (d) (2)) The following shall not be considered to be adverse actions and, therefore, require a NOA be mailed in sufficient time to reach the beneficiary by the effective date of the action: (A) Discontinuance due to any of the following reasons: (1) Death, for a one-person MFBU. (2) The whereabouts of the beneficiary is unknown and the post office has returned county department mail directed to the beneficiary indicating no forwarding address. (Please Note: SB 87 redetermination procedures must be followed prior to sending the Discontinuance NOA in this case [Welfare & Institutions Code, Section 14005.37]). (3) Admission to an institution which renders the beneficiary ineligible. (4) The beneficiary also has Medi-Cal eligibility under another identity or category, or in another county or Medicaid eligibility in another state; or will have such dual eligibility as of the first of the coming month if discontinuance action is not taken. (5) Receipt of the beneficiary’s clear and signed written statement that does either of the following: States the beneficiary no longer wishes Medi-Cal benefits. Gives information that requires discontinuance and includes the beneficiary’s acknowledgment that this must be the consequence of supplying such information. 4 4 Please Note: DHCS interprets this to mean that a beneficiary has chosen to voluntarily add a family member with the knowledge that their SOC will increase, and the beneficiary chooses to waive 10-day notice in order to include the family member sooner. In these cases the NOA must still reach the beneficiary by the date of the action, but waiving the 10-day NOA might be the difference between making the change effective the upcoming month. All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 6 May 14, 2013 (B) An increase in an MFBU’s SOC due to either of the following: (1) The voluntary inclusion of eligible family members who currently are not receiving benefits under any Medi-Cal program. (2) Receipt of the beneficiary’s clear and signed statement which gives information which requires an increase in the SOC and includes the beneficiary’s acknowledgment that this must be the consequence of supplying such information. (22 CCR 50015) 5 20. The NOA shall be mailed for all actions other than those referred to in 22 CCR 50179 (d) (1) and 22 CCR 50179 (d) (2), no later than the date the county department takes the action. (22 CCR 50179 (d) (3)) 21. In cases of probable fraud, the agency may shorten the period of advance notice to 5 days before the date of action if the agency has facts indicating the action should be taken because of probable fraud by the beneficiary and the facts have been verified, if possible, through secondary sources. (42 CFR 431.214) 22. Duplicate NOAs shall be mailed to the administrator of the long-term care facility in which the applicant or beneficiary resides, if the applicant or beneficiary or person acting on their behalf has made such a request. (22 CCR 50179 (e)) 23. Conditional notices which advise applicants or beneficiaries that eligibility will be denied or discontinued unless specified actions are taken by the applicants or beneficiaries shall not be considered to meet the requirements of what constitutes a NOA, as outlined by 22 CCR 50179 (a). (22 CCR 50179 (f)) 24. Persons who are granted, denied, or discontinued from county cash-based programs shall be notified in writing by the county department of their eligibility or ineligibility for county cash-based Medi-Cal. Additionally, persons who are discontinued shall be notified of their continued Medi-Cal eligibility status. (22 CCR 50179.5 (a)) 5 Please Note: The county must send a NOA for any discontinuance, including death of a one person MFBU. All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 7 May 14, 2013 25. DHCS shall notify persons determined to be eligible for Supplemental Security Income\/State Supplementary Payment by the Social Security Administration that they are also eligible for Medi-Cal. (22 CCR 50179.7 (a)) Multiple NOAs Do not send multiple NOAs for Programs for which the applicant\/beneficiary is ineligible. Counties shall ensure that when following the eligibility hierarchy described in ACWDL 99-02, ACWDL 06-41 and ACWDL 12-33, NOAs for every program for which the applicant\/beneficiary has been evaluated and does not qualify are not sent to the applicant\/beneficiary. Scope of Benefits Information in the NOA To the extent possible, without requiring automation changes, general information explaining limited benefits should only be displayed on a NOA if the applicant\/beneficiary has eligibility for limited benefits. If the applicant\/beneficiary has full-scope benefits, general information explaining the limited benefits should not be included on the NOA. The following is general language that may be used by counties for purposes of providing an explanation of limited benefits on appropriate NOAs: You can only receive emergency, pregnancy-related, and long-term care services with limited Medi-Cal benefits. If you are not sure if something is an emergency, pregnancy related, or long-term care service, contact your medical provider. SOC Information in the NOA To the extent possible, without requiring automation changes, general information explaining SOC should only be displayed on a NOA if the applicant\/beneficiary has a SOC. If the applicant\/beneficiary has no-cost Medi-Cal, general information explaining the SOC should not be included on the NOA. Counties shall continue to provide the SOC budget in all NOAs where the beneficiary(ies) has a SOC. Referral to a Local Legal Aid Office or State Welfare Rights Office Counties have the option of adding the following language to any NOA: You can also contact your local legal aid office or ________________ for help. (Local Agency Referral) All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 8 May 14, 2013 NOA Font Size Policy All Medi-Cal NOAs shall adhere to the following font size policy: (1) The body of the notice, which includes but is not limited to information about the future action that will be taken and why, must be at a minimum of Arial font size 10. (2) Any budget calculations included on the notice must be at a minimum of Arial font size 10. (3) Use of font size smaller than 10 should be limited to specifically identified situations where it is demonstrated that 10 point font cannot be used. (4) ALL CAPS should be avoided whenever possible, as it is difficult to read. NOA Language Policy In order to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act, Government Code, Section 7290, et seq., counties are required to provide free interpreter services to all non-English and LEP participants regardless of whether the State has translated the NOA. This means that the county must, at a minimum, provide oral interpretation of all forms, materials, and notices necessary for the participant to participate in and benefit from the Medi-Cal program. Counties should be aware that if they do not have an individual on site to interpret the requested language, a service such as those that provide telephone-based interpretation services should be utilized to provide meaningful language access. ACWDL 08-32, Notice of Action Requirements, required counties to send a multilingual notification with all NOA mailings effective October 1, 2008, as an interim measure until NOAs are translated in threshold languages. Counties shall continue to send a multilingual notification with all NOA mailings until notified otherwise by DHCS. The multilingual notification shall be sent with NOAs to all applicants\/beneficiaries regardless of the primary language specified on the Medi-Cal Eligibility Data System to ensure LEP individuals are aware of the translation services for which they are entitled. If DHCS has translated the NOAs into any of the threshold languages, counties are required to use the translated NOAs for applicants and beneficiaries in their primary language, regardless of whether that language is a threshold language in that County. The current written threshold languages required for Medi-Cal are: Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Armenian, Farsi, Khmer (Cambodian), Hmong, Arabic and Tagalog. All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 9 May 14, 2013 NOA POLICY REMINDERS 1. NOA Template All Medi-Cal NOA are required to include the following information in the Header and Footer of the NOA: Header Notice Date Case Number Worker Name Worker ID Number Worker Telephone Number Worker Address Office Hours Footer Hearing Rights Any necessary laws or regulations 2. NA Back 9 The NA Back 9 is a universal back page to be used on all NOAs for Medi-Cal, CalWORKs, and\/or CalFresh. The NA Back 9 includes all information regarding hearing rights as required by federal and state regulations. This includes: the right to request a State hearing; the procedures for requesting a State hearing; the time limits within which a State hearing must be requested; and all other State hearing information as required by federal and state regulations. The NA Back 9 is located on the Medi-Cal forms website at http:\/\/www.dss.cahwnet.gov\/Forms\/English\/NABACK9.PDF or the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) forms website at http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/NABACK9.PDF . The language printed on the NA Back 9 may not be modified, except to enter county specific information, and does not need to adhere to the font size policy outlined in this ACWDL. Counties are required to use a translated NA Back 9 for applicants and beneficiaries in their primary language, regardless of whether it is a threshold language in that County. The Department of Social Services has translated the NA Back 9 into the following languages: Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Farsi, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Lao, Mien, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/cdssweb\/entres\/forms\/English\/NABACK9.PDF All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 10 May 14, 2013 Residents of Long Term Care Facilities If the applicant\/beneficiary or person acting on his\/her behalf makes the request, the county will mail duplicate NOAs to the administrator of the long term care facility where the applicant\/ beneficiary resides. 3. Timely Notice (a) Ten-Day Notice A Ten-Day Notice shall be mailed to the beneficiary at least 10 days prior to the first month in which an adverse action becomes effective, excluding the date of mailing. Adverse action means an action taken by a county department which discontinues Medi-Cal eligibility or increases a MFBU SOC (22 CCR 50015). Please note that there are some discontinuances or increases in SOC which are not considered adverse and do not require 10-day notice. These are described below: (b) Notice in Sufficient Time A NOA shall be mailed to the beneficiary in sufficient time to reach the beneficiary by the effective date of the action for discontinuances or increases in SOC which are not adverse actions. The effective date of the action is the date the action itself is set to occur. Discontinuances that are not considered adverse actions are: Death, for a one-person MFBU. Whereabouts of the beneficiary is unknown and the post office has returned county department mail directed to the beneficiary indicating no forwarding address (Please Note: Counties must follow SB 87 redetermination procedures prior to sending the Discontinuance NOA in this case). Admission to an institution which renders the beneficiary ineligible. The beneficiary also has Medi-Cal eligibility under another identity or category or in another county or state or will have such dual eligibility as of the first of the coming month if discontinuance action is not taken. Receipt of the beneficiary’s clear and signed written statement that either states the beneficiary no longer wishes Medi-Cal benefits or gives information that requires discontinuance and includes the beneficiary’s All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 11 May 14, 2013 acknowledgment that this must be the consequence of supplying such information. (22 CCR 50015). Increases in an MFBU’s SOC that are not considered adverse action are: Voluntary inclusion of eligible family members who currently are not receiving benefits under any Medi-Cal program. Receipt of the beneficiary’s clear and signed statement which gives information which requires an increase in the SOC and includes the beneficiary’s acknowledgment that this must be the consequence of supplying such information. (22 CCR 50015). (c) All Situations Other than (1) and (2) Above In all situations other than those described in (1) and (2) above, the NOA shall be mailed no later than the date the county takes the action. Examples of all other situations are approvals, denials and decreases in SOC. (d) Discontinuance or Increase in SOC during Application Period As explained in the Timely Notice section, discontinuances and increases in SOC fall into either the adverse action or discontinuance or increase in SOC which is not an adverse action category. The exception to this rule occurs when the discontinuance or increase in SOC happens prior to the Medi-Cal eligibility determination. When an applicant has a discontinuance or increase in SOC during the eligibility determination period, the action does not fall into the adverse action category, the discontinuance or increase in SOC which is not an adverse action category. Therefore, the NOA explaining the discontinuance or increase in SOC that happened prior to an eligibility determination shall be mailed no later than the date the county takes the action, as described in the All Situations Other than (1) and (2) Above section. Examples are listed below: 1. Discontinuance during Application Period \/ Closed Period of Eligibility When an applicant is approved for Medi-Cal and subsequently discontinued from Medi-Cal prior to the date of the eligibility determination, this is called a Closed Period of Eligibility (CPE). A CPE is common with Long-Term Care cases, but can occur in other cases as well. The discontinuance that leads to a CPE does not fall into either category listed in the Timely Notice All County Welfare Directors Letter No.: 13-13 Page 12 May 14, 2013 section above and, therefore, shall be mailed no later than the date the county takes the action. 2. Increase in SOC during Application Period When an applicant is approved for Medi-Cal, but has an increase in his\/her SOC prior to the eligibility determination, the increase in SOC does not fall into either category listed in the Timely Notice section and, therefore, shall be mailed no later than the date the county takes the action. If you have any questions about this ACWDL, please contact Alison Brown at (916) 327-0418 or by email at [email protected]. This ACWDL is intended to provide general NOA policy. Program specific questions about NOAs will be forwarded to the appropriate analyst. Original Signed By Tara Naisbitt, Chief Medi-Cal Eligibility Division ”

” 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) A foster care provider, including group homes and foster family agencies, who request a hearing to challenge a county action to recover an overpayment under Sections 45-304, 45-305, and 45-306, except for overpayments requests made by a county pursuant to Section 45-304.124. (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-09-01 Effective 7\/1\/09 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; and Senate Bill 84, Chapter 177, Statutes of 2007, Sections 32 and 33. Reference: Sections 10051, 10613, 10950, 10963, 11209, 11323.6, 11323.8, 11466.23, 11466.235, and 11466.24, 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-09-01 Effective 7\/1\/09 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. .15 There is no right to a state hearing regarding overpayments made to foster care providers including group homes and foster family agencies where the claimant entered into a voluntary repayment agreement, under Section 45-305.231. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553, 10554, and 10604, Welfare and Institutions Code; and Senate Bill 84, Chapter 177, Statutes of 2007, Sections 32 and 33. Reference: Sections 10613, 10950, 11209, 11466.23, 11466.235, and 11466.24, 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-10-01 Effective 5\/10\/10 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 Except as provided for in Section 45-306.3 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-09-01 Effective 7\/1\/09 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; and Senate Bill 84, Chapter 177, Statutes of 2007, Sections 32 and 33. Reference: Sections 10950, 10951, 11466.23, 11466.235, and 11466.24, 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-09-01 Effective 7\/1\/09 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. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW REQUEST FOR REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 22-100 REQUEST FOR REVIEW Section Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-101 Complaints ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .1 State Hearings …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .2 Request for Review — General……………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-105 County Department or California Department of Social Services Review………………………………… 22-107 CWD Responsibility …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-109 Availability of Review ……………………………………………………………………………………………… .1 Designation of Staff to Conduct Review……………………………………………………………………… .2 Dissatisfaction with Review………………………………………………………………………………………. .3 Complaint Records and Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………….. .4 California Department of Social Services Responsibility……………………………………………………….. 22-113 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 154 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-105 DIVISION 22 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW CHAPTER 22-100 REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-101 DEFINITIONS 22-101 (a) The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used in describing and reporting review activities in this chapter. (1) Complaint-A communication received from an applicant for or recipient of public social services or food stamps; a person acting for the applicant or recipient such as a legal guardian, relative, friend, or other spokesperson who has knowledge of his\/her need; relatives found liable for contributions; another person, including an anonymous person; which includes but is not limited to: (A) A request or implication of a request for some review or service by the CWD or the Department. (B) An expression of misunderstanding or dissatisfaction with some specific action, lack of action, or series of actions by a county or counties affecting an application for or receipt of public social services or food stamps. (C) A request or implication of a request for review and negotiation with the county regarding possible adjustment rather than a state hearing. (D) A report of fraud or misuse of funds by recipients or misues of food stamps. (2) State Hearing-An administrative hearing procedure established pursuant to Sections 10950 through 10965 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, see Operations Manual Section 22-001. 22-105 REQUEST FOR REVIEW — GENERAL 22-105 .1 Any expression of misunderstanding or dissatisfaction, oral or written, shall be accepted as a request for review. .11 At such time the right to a state hearing and aid paid pending shall be explained. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-90-02 Issued 5\/1\/90 Page 155 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-107 REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations 22-107 COUNTY DEPARTMENT OR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 22-107 SOCIAL SERVICES REVIEW .1 A dissatisfied person may request the CWD or the Department to review county action, or failure to act in any matter relating to his\/her grant, food stamps, or treatment. .11 The individual shall be encouraged to exhaust CWD adjustment procedures before requesting the Department to review his\/her problem. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. 22-109 CWD RESPONSIBILITY 22-109 .1 Availability of Review .11 In all individual relationships the CWD shall strive for prompt, simple, and precise explanations of its actions to assure the maximum understanding on the part of the individuals. .111 If this is not achieved between the individual and the social worker, the CWD shall be responsible for providing, administratively, a process through which the individual will receive an appropriate explanation or a resolution of his\/her problem. .2 Designation of Staff to Conduct Review .21 The CWD, in accordance with its size and\/or administrative structure, shall specifically designate staff to be responsible for the activities connected with requests for review. .211 Such staff shall: (a) Be in a position to reassess promptly the client’s situation in the light of applicable regulations with freedom to consider alternatives other than confirmation of the action under review. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 156 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-109 22-109 CWD RESPONSIBILITY (Continued) 22-109 (b) Have authority to take immediate action and effect any adjustment as may be appropriate. .212 The staff review shall discover and correct any of the following: (a) Failures of communication between complainant and worker. (b) Erroneous application of public social service or food stamp regulations. (c) Failure to provide aid and services promptly and humanely, without discrimination, and in a manner as to encourage self-respect and self-reliance. .3 Dissatisfaction with Review .31 As part of the review process, the client shall be informed by county staff of his\/her right to a state hearing. .4 Complaint Records and Analysis .41 In the Food Stamp Program, counties shall maintain records of complaints received and their dispositions (see Section 22-101(a)(1)), and shall review records at least annually to assess whether patterns of problems exist in local offices or throughout the county. .411 The results of this review shall be reported annually to the Department on the report form provided by the Department. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 157 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-113 REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations 22-113 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSIBILITY 22-113 .1 The Department shall be responsible for providing a process whereby the individual who has not achieved an understanding with the county may have his\/her situation reassessed and reviewed promptly. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .11 The review by the Department is conducted by the Public Inquiry and Response Unit. A request for review is to be distinguished from the preliminary hearing procedure described in Section 22- 074. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .2 The Department’s complaints staff shall: .21 Receive the request for review; .22 Contact the designated staff in the appropriate county; .23 Inform the county of the client’s problem; and .24 Request that the problem be promptly reassessed. .3 The Department staff may inform the county of the intent or meaning of applicable regulations. .4 As part of the review process the client shall be informed of his\/her right to a state 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-95-02 Effective 5\/12\/95 Page 158 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 22-200 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Section Administrative Fraud Hearings – General …………………………………………………………………………….. 22-200 General Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-201 Notice of Administrative Hearings ……………………………………………………………………………………… 22-202 Hearing Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-210 Local Level Hearings ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-215 Hearing Decision ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-220 Disposition of Administrative Fraud Hearings ……………………………………………………………………… 22-230 Consolidation of Administrative Fraud Hearing with State Hearing………………………………………… 22-240 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-202 (Cont.) CHAPTER 22-200 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-200 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-200 .1 The regulations in this chapter shall apply to hearings resulting from a CWD’s determination, supported by documentation, that a food stamp administrative disqualification for an intentional Program violation is appropriate and in accordance with CDSS’ Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 20, Chapter 20-300. .2 Administrative disqualification hearings are distinct from state hearings discussed in Chapter 22-000. 22-201 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-201 .1 An administrative disqualification hearing (ADH) at the state level shall be initiated when a CWD informs the Administrative Adjudications Division (AAD) of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that clear and convincing documentary evidence in the CWD’s possession indicates that an administrative disqualification is appropriate. .11 The Department shall then assume responsibility for the overall administration of the disqualification hearing process and the conduct of each hearing at the state level. .2 An ADH at the local level shall be initiated when a CWD informs the CWD-designated unit responsible for scheduling and conducting an ADH that clear and convincing documentary evidence in the CWD’s possession indicates that an administrative disqualification is appropriate. .21 The CWD shall assume responsibility for the overall administration of the disqualification hearing process and the conduct of each hearing at the local level. .3 The CWD shall remain responsible for: .31 Investigating the case and assisting the respondent prior to the hearing; .32 Presenting the CWD’s position during the hearing; and .33 Complying with the hearing decision. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 160 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-201 (Cont.) ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-201 GENERAL PROVISIONS (Continued) 22-201 .4 Definitions .41 The definitions in Section 22-001 shall apply to this chapter. The following additional definitions, in alphabetical order, shall apply wherever the terms are used in this chapter: .411 Administrative Disqualification Decision – Means the written decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) after an administrative disqualification hearing at the state level and by the CWD-designated hearing official after a local level hearing. .412 Notice of Hearing – Means the written notification which initiates an administrative disqualification hearing (see Section 22-202.3) and is provided as follows: (a) At the state level, CDSS shall provide written notification to the respondent and the CWD and (b) At the local level, the CWD shall provide written notification to the respondent and the CWD-designated unit responsible for presenting the case at the local level hearing. .413 Respondent – Means the household member(s) who the CWD has determined may be subject to administrative disqualification. To the extent the provisions of Chapter 22- 000 relating to state hearings apply to administrative disqualification hearings, all references to \”claimant\” in such regulations shall be deemed to refer to \”respondent\” for purposes of the administrative disqualification hearing. .5 Procedures Governing State Hearings Also Applicable to Administrative Disqualification Hearings (a) The following provisions of Chapter 22-000 shall be applicable to administrative disqualification hearings: (1) Section 22-002 relating to determination of time limit; (2) Section 22-010 relating to authorized representatives; CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 161 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-201 22-201 GENERAL PROVISIONS (Continued) 22-201 (3) Section 22-023.13 relating to assignment of county representatives; (4) Section 22-023.2 relating to duties of county representatives prior to and at the hearing; (5) Section 22-025 relating to situations where the hearing is held in a county other than the responsible county; (6) Sections 22-045.1 and .2 relating to the time and place of the hearing; (7) Section 22-049 relating to general rules and procedures at the hearing, excluding .11; (8) Section 22-050 relating to evidence; (9) Section 22-051 relating to the examination of records and issuance of subpoenas; (10) Section 22-052 relating to witness fees and mileage; (11) Section 22-053.2 relating to continuances for additional evidence; (12) Section 22-055 relating to disqualification of hearing officers; (13) Section 22-059 relating to communications after the hearing. .6 Both the CWD’s representative and the claimant’s 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, then he\/she may not be present as an adviser until after he\/she has testified. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(e)(10)(i). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 162 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-202 (Cont.) 22-202 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING (ADH) 22-202 .1 When the CWD determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that a household member(s) is subject to disqualification from the Food Stamp Program because of a suspected intentional Program violation and believes the household member(s) should be disqualified in accordance with Division 20, Chapter 20-300 the CWD shall: .11 Notify the Chief Administrative Law Judge in writing; and, .12 Request that an administrative disqualification hearing be scheduled. .121 The notification shall set forth the charges against the respondent and contain a summary of the evidence. .2 The request for a state or local level hearing shall be reviewed and signed by a county supervisory employee to ensure that clear and convincing evidence exists for an IPV hearing request. .3 CDSS shall monitor that the requests sent pursuant to Sections 22-201.1 and .2 are appropriate for IPV consideration in that they represent cases in which clear and convincing evidence has been identified to warrant the scheduling of such hearing. .31 Upon receipt of the request described in Section 22-201.1 or .2, the Department or the CWD shall schedule an administrative disqualification hearing. .4 Waiver of Right to an Administrative Disqualification Hearing .41 A waiver request form shall be sent with the Notice required by Section 22-202.5 to the respondent. The waiver request form shall be a written notification which informs respondent of the possibility of waiving the ADH. This waiver request form shall include: (a) The information that the respondent has 20 days from the date of the notice to submit the signed waiver form to the Department in the case of a state level hearing or to the CWD in the case of a local level hearing. If the respondent fails to sign the return the waiver request to the Department within 20 days from the date of the notice, the ADH shall be held as scheduled. (b) A signature block for the respondent’s and the head of household’s signature. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 163 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-202 (Cont.) ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-202 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-202 (Continued) (c) A statement that the head of the household must sign if the respondent is not the head of the household. (d) A statement of the respondent’s right to remain silent concerning the charge(s) against the respondent and that anything said or signed by the respondent concerning the charge(s) can be used against the respondent in a court of law. (e) A statement indicating that the waiver of the respondent’s right to an ADH will result in disqualification and a reduction in benefits for the period of disqualification even if the respondent does not admit to the facts as presented by the CWD. (f) Statements indicating whether the respondent wishes to admit that facts as presented are correct. Those statements shall be worded as follows: (A) I admit to the facts as presented, and understand that a disqualification penalty shall be imposed if I sign this waiver. (B) I do not admit that the facts as presented are correct. However, I have chosen to sign this waiver and understand that a disqualification penalty shall result. (g) The telephone number and name of the CWD representative to contact for additional information about the ADH, and the waiver request. (h) A statement informing the remaining household members that they shall be held responsible for repayment of the resulting claim, unless the claim has already been paid. (i) A statement that the signing of the waiver form is entirely voluntary and that failure to sign the form shall not affect eligibility. (j) A statement that the respondent’s income and resources shall continue to be counted in the food stamp household’s eligibility determination even though the respondent is disqualified from participation in the Food Stamp Program. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 164 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-202 (Cont.) 22-202 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-202 (Continued) (k) A warning of the disqualification penalties which could be imposed (as provided in Section 20-300.31) and a statement of which penalty shall be imposed as a result of the respondent having consented to disqualification. (l) A statement in bold print that says, \”DO NOT SIGN THIS IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!.\” .42 If the respondent voluntarily and knowingly submits a signed waiver of his\/her right to an ADH within the 20-day period to the Department in a state level hearing, or to the CWD in a local level hearing, the Department in a state level hearing, or the CWD in a local level hearing, shall submit a signed copy of the waiver to the CWD and shall notify the CWD to initiate the notification of disqualification action and imposition of disqualification penalties in accordance with CDSS’ Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 20, Sections 20-300.24, .3, and .4. .43 No further administrative appeal procedure exists after a respondent waives his\/her right to an ADH and a disqualification penalty has been imposed. The disqualification penalty cannot be changed by a subsequent ADH or a state hearing decision. The respondent, however, is entitled to seek relief in a court having appropriate jurisdiction. .44 The CWD shall inform the respondent by written notice that a request for a state\/local level ADH has been filed by the CWD and that he\/she may waive the right to an ADH through a pre-hearing waiver process. .441 The written notice shall be provided in person or by mail pursuant to Section 22-202.511 et seq., except Section 22-202.511(a). (a) The notice shall contain a request for the respondent to contact a specified representative of the CWD to set a meeting date, time, and location. .442 The waiver shall be as described in Section 22-202.4. (a) The notice shall contain language that informs the respondent that he\/she may rescind the waiver within seven (7) working days after the date the waiver was signed if, after signing the waiver, the respondent changes his\/her mind. (b) The notice shall contain language that informs the respondent how to obtain a copy of the state’s applicable published hearing procedures. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-97-02 Effective 5\/1\/97 Page 165 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-202 (Cont.) ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-202 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-202 (Continued) .443 The CWD shall not use threats, coercion, or the promise of leniency with respect to criminal prosecution in obtaining the respondent’s signature on a waiver. .5 Notice of Hearing .51 CDSS for the state level hearing, or the CWD for the local level hearing, shall send a written notice to the respondent, with a copy to the CWD at least 30 days in advance of the date of the hearing or of a consolidated hearing. .511 The notice shall either be personally served or sent by first class regular mail. If no proof of receipt is obtained, evidence of nonreceipt by the household member shall be considered good cause for not appearing at the hearing. The notice shall contain, at a minimum: (a) The date, time, and place of the hearing. (b) A statement that the respondent is entitled to one postponement and may receive additional postponements for good cause. The total period for all postponements shall not exceed 30 days, and the request for postponement must be made at least 10 days in advance of the date of the scheduled hearing. (c) The charges against the respondent. (d) A summary of the evidence, and how and where the evidence can be examined. (e) A warning that the decision will be based solely on information provided by the CWD if the respondent fails to appear at the hearing. (f) A warning that an individual found to have committed an intentional Program violation shall be ineligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program for six months for the first violation, 12 months for the second violation, and permanently for the third violation and a statement of which penalty the CWD believes is applicable to the respondent’s case. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-96-02 Effective 2\/14\/96 Page 166 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-202 22-202 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-202 (Continued) (g) A listing of the respondent’s rights as contained in Section 22-049.7. (h) A statement that the hearing does not preclude the County, State or Federal government from prosecuting the respondent for the intentional Program violation in a civil or criminal court action, or from collecting an overissuance related to the alleged intentional Program violation. (i) A statement that the respondent can call the CWD to get the name and phone number (if available) of someone who can give free legal advice. If free legal advice is not available, the CWD shall provide when called, the phone number of a lawyer referral service or the local bar association. (j) Language that informs the respondent how to obtain a copy of the state’s applicable published hearing procedures. (k) A statement that in order to reschedule the hearing, the respondent shall have 10 days from the date of the scheduled hearing to present good cause for failure to appear, as set forth in Section 22-053.14. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(e) and (f); and United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, Waiver Number 950048. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-97-02 Effective 5\/1\/97 Page 166.1 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-210 (Cont.) 22-210 HEARING PROCEDURE 22-210 .1 Local level and state level IPV ADHs shall be conducted pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 22-000. .11 The hearing officer shall advise the respondent that he\/she may refuse to answer questions during the hearing. .12 The hearing shall be conducted by an impartial ALJ at the state level, or an impartial hearing official at the local level who has not had previous involvement in the case. .13 The ALJ and local level hearing officials shall prepare fair, impartial, and independent decisions. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .14 See Section 22-330 for instances when a Food Stamp ADH can be combined with an AFDC ADH. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .2 Postponements At the request of the respondent, the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall be permitted to postpone the hearing for a period of up to 30 days provided that the request for postponement is made at least 10 days in advance of the date of the scheduled hearing. .21 The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall be permitted to limit the number of the postponements to one unless there is good cause established in accordance with Section 22- 053.14. .22 The total period for one or more postponements shall not exceed 30 days. .23 The time limit for rendering a decision on the hearing may be extended for the length of time the hearing is postponed. .3 Cancellation of Hearing If after a hearing has been scheduled, the CWD finds that further evidence indicates that an administrative disqualification is no longer appropriate, it shall notify the Chief Referee. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 167 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-210 (Cont.) ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-210 HEARING PROCEDURE (Continued) 22-210 .31 The Chief Referee shall then notify the respondent and the CWD that the administrative disqualification hearing is cancelled. .4 Respondent Fails to Attend Hearing .41 If the respondent cannot be located or fails to appear at a hearing, the hearing shall be conducted in the absence of the respondent. .411 The hearing officer shall review the evidence presented by the county and prepare a decision based upon that evidence. .42 If the respondent establishes good cause for failure to attend the hearing, a new hearing shall be scheduled. .421 The criteria for good cause shall be the criteria set forth in Section 22-053.14. .422 The respondent shall establish good cause for failure to attend the hearing no later than 10 days after receiving the hearing decision. .423 The respondent shall establish good cause by contacting the Chief Referee by letter or by telephone. (a) The Chief Referee shall have authority to require that the respondent submit verification of good cause. .424 The respondent and the CWD shall be notified in writing of the good cause determination and the determination shall be placed into the hearing record. .425 If good cause is established, the hearing decision shall have no affect on the respondent’s status. Nor shall it affect the household’s continuing benefit, except as provided in Section 63-805.2. (a) Pending the rehearing decision, any benefits lost to the household as a result of the rescinded decision shall be restored in accordance with Section 63-802.1. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 168 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-215 22-215 LOCAL LEVEL HEARINGS 22-215 .1 Subject to CDSS approval of a county’s ADH plan, counties may choose to provide ADHs at the local level with a right to appeal to a state level de novo hearing. .2 If a local level disqualification hearing determines that a household member committed an IPV, the notification of hearing decision specified in Section 22-220.2 shall also inform the household member: .21 Of the right to appeal the local level decision within 25 days after the date the notice has been sent to the respondent by the county (see Section 22-340.6); .22 Of the date the disqualification shall take effect unless a state level hearing is requested; and .23 That benefits shall be continued pending a state level de novo hearing if the household is otherwise eligible. .3 If the household member appeals the local level decision, the advance notice of the state level hearing, as specified in Section 22-202 shall be mailed to the respondent at least 15 days prior to the date of the scheduled state level hearing and shall also inform the household member that the local hearing decision shall be upheld if the household or its representative fails to appear without good cause for the hearing. .4 The local level hearing decision shall be made within 90 days from the date of the notice scheduling the hearing. .5 When a local level decision is appealed, CDSS shall conduct the state level hearing, arrive at a decision, and notify the household member and local agency of the decision within 60 days of the date the household member appealed its case. .51 The local level decision shall not be taken into consideration by the state ALJ in making the final determination. .6 In all other respects, local level disqualification hearings shall be handled in accordance with the procedures specified in this chapter for state level hearings. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(e)(10)(i). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-220 22-220 HEARING DECISION 22-220 .1 After the hearing has been closed, the hearing officer shall prepare a written decision. .2 The decision shall include: .21 A statement of facts. .22 The statutes and regulations involved. .23 The reasoning which supports the decision. .24 Responses to arguments raised by the respondent. .3 Any determination of an intentional Program violation which is made in such a decision shall be based upon clear and convincing evidence. .4 The hearing officer’s proposed decision shall be subject to the review of the Chief Referee and the Director. .41 The Chief Referee or Director shall have the authority to reject the proposed decision of the hearing officer and prepare a separate decision based upon the record in the case or to order an additional hearing. .42 Any such decision shall be subject to the provisions of Section 22-220.2. .5 A copy of the hearing decision shall be mailed to the respondent and to the CWD. .51 If the decision is adverse to the respondent, the decision shall notify the respondent of the right to judicial review, and shall advise the respondent 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 suit. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 170 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-230 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-230 DISPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS 22-230 .1 All administrative disqualification hearing decisions shall be mailed within 90 days of the date of the notice of hearing described in Section 22-202.3. .11 If the decision results in upholding the disqualification of the respondent, the CWD shall initiate the administrative action in accordance with SDSS’ Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 20, Chapter 20-300. .12 If the hearing is postponed (see Section 22-210.2), the 90-day period shall be extended by the period of time that the case is postponed. .13 If a new hearing is scheduled pursuant to Section 22-210.42, a new 90-day period shall commence from the date the respondent and CWD are notified of the new hearing. .14 If a hearing is continued or postponed, (see Section 22-053) the respondent shall be given a written notice that explains that the time limit for rendering a decision will be extended by the same number of days as the hearing is postponed or continued. .15 An administrative disqualification decision is not subject to the provisions of Section 22-065. .151 There is no right to a rehearing regarding a finding of intentional Program violation. .152 A decision finding intentional Program violation shall inform the respondent concerning the right to judicial review. 22-240 CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION 22-240 HEARING WITH STATE HEARING .1 At his\/her discretion or upon the request of the respondent or the CWD, the Chief Referee shall have the authority to consolidate requests for a state hearing with an administrative disqualification hearing. .11 If the factual issues arise out of the same, or related circumstances and the household receives prior notice (as required in Section 22-202.3) then the hearings will be combined. However, the respondent, upon request, shall be allowed to waive the 30-day advance notice when the hearing requests are consolidated. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-90-02 Issued 5\/1\/90 Page 171 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations ADMINISTRATIVE FRAUD HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-240 22-240 CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION 22-240 HEARING WITH STATE HEARING (Continued) .12 In such cases, although only one actual hearing may be held, the procedures governing the administrative disqualification hearing aspect of the case and the state hearing aspect shall be separately identified and followed. .13 The hearing officer shall have the authority to: .131 Sever the proceedings and hold each hearing separately. .132 Postpone or continue the state hearing and not postpone or continue the administrative disqualification hearing or vice versa. .14 If a state hearing case is consolidated under this section, the time limits for its disposition, shall be the same as for the administrative disqualification hearing, (see Section 22-230). .15 If a state hearing case is consolidated under this section, for the purpose of settling the amount of the claim at the same time as determining whether or not an intentional Program violation has occurred, the respondent shall lose the right to a subsequent state hearing on the amount of the claim. .2 A pending administrative disqualification hearing shall not affect the individual’s or household’s right to be certified or to participate in the Food Stamp Program. .3 In the Food Stamp Program, when the determination of intentional Program violation is reversed by the court, the CWD shall reinstate the individual if the household is eligible in accordance with procedures in CDSS’ Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 63, Section 63-805.2. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-90-02 Issued 5\/1\/90 Page 172 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 22-300 AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Section Administrative Disqualification Hearings (ADHs) – General………………………………………………….. 22-301 General Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-305 Requirement for Notices of Penalties for IPVs……………………………………………………………………… 22-310 Notice of Administrative Disqualification Hearing ……………………………………………………………….. 22-315 Waiver of the Administrative Disqualification Hearing …………………………………………………………. 22-320 Postponements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22-325 Hearing Procedures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-330 Local Level Hearings ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22-335 Administrative Disqualification Hearings – Decisions …………………………………………………………… 22-340 Disqualification Penalties ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22-345 CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 173 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-305 (Cont.) CHAPTER 22-300 AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-301 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS 22-301 (ADHs) – GENERAL .1 The regulations in this chapter shall apply to hearings resulting from a county welfare department’s (CWD’s) determination, supported by documentation in the CWD’s possession, that an individual has allegedly committed an intentional program violation (IPV) in the AFDC program as set forth in the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 20, Chapter 20-350. .2 Administrative disqualification hearings are distinct from the state hearings discussed in Chapter 22- 000. .3 Those cases in which the prosecuting authority has determined (a) that facts do not warrant prosecution, or (b) those cases previously referred for prosecution and declined, shall be returned to the CWD and the CWD shall initiate referral action for an ADH through CDSS, in accordance with CDSS Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 22. .4 The CWD shall not initiate an ADH against an accused individual whose case is currently being referred for prosecution or subsequent to any action taken against the accused individual by the prosecutor or court of the appropriate jurisdiction, if the factual issues of the case arise out of the same or related circumstances. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(a)(1) and 45 CFR 235.112(a). 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 .1 An ADH at the state level shall be initiated when a CWD informs the Department that sufficient evidence in the CWD’s possession indicates that an administrative disqualification is appropriate. .11 The Department shall then assume responsibility for the overall administration of the disqualification hearing process and the conduct of each hearing at the state level. .2 An ADH at the local level shall be initiated when a CWD informs the CWD-designated unit responsible for scheduling and conducting an ADH that sufficient evidence in the CWD’s possession indicates that an administrative disqualification is appropriate. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 174 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-305 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 (Continued) .21 The CWD shall assume responsibility for the overall administration of the disqualification hearing process and the conduct of each hearing at the local level. .3 In both state and local level hearings, the CWD shall remain responsible for: .31 Investigating the case and assisting the respondent prior to the hearing; .32 Presenting the CWD’s position during the hearing; and .33 Complying with the hearing decision. .4 Definitions The definitions in Section 22-001 shall apply unless they are specifically provided for in this chapter. The following additional definitions, in alphabetical order, shall apply wherever the terms are used in this chapter: .41 Administrative Disqualification Decision – Means the written decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALF) after an ADH at the state level and by the CWD-designated hearing official after a local level hearing. .42 Intentional Program Violation (IPV) – Means an action by an individual, for the purpose of establishing or maintaining the family’s eligibility for AFDC or for increasing or preventing a reduction in the amount of the grant, which is intentionally: .421 A false or misleading statement or misrepresentation, concealment, or withholding of facts, or .422 Any act intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal, or withhold facts or propound a falsity. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 175 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-305 (Cont.) 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 (Continued) HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE (a) To determine what constitutes an IPV, CDSS recognizes a distinction in the following: (1) Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(1)(MR) shall become inoperative and Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(1)(QR) shal become operative in a county on the date QR\/PB becomes effective in that county, pursuant to the Director’s QR\/PB Declaration. Intentional concealment or willful misrepresentation which may result in an IPV. (MR) EXAMPLE: In completing the Monthly Eligibility Reports (CA 7), respondent checks the box indicating family has no income. Respondent also checks box indicating that no one had started employment that month. County evidence indicates respondent did start work during the month it was reported that no one had started work. Respondent also did receive earnings in each of the months under review. (QR) EXAMPLE: In completing the Quarterly Eligibility Report (QR 7), respondent checks the box indicating the family has no income. Respondent also checks box indicating that no one had started employment in the QR 7 Reporting Period. County evidence indicates respondent did start work during the QR Data Month, but it was reported that no one had started work. Respondent also did receive earnings in each of the months under review. (2) Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(2)(MR) shall become inoperative and Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(2)(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. Incorrect representation, negligence, or omissions because of a mistake or a lack of understanding of eligibility requirements which do not result in an IPV. HANDBOOK CONTINUES CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-05-01 Effective 8\/5\/05 Page 175.1 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-305 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 (Continued) HANDBOOK CONTINUES (MR) EXAMPLE: Respondent reports that he\/she began employment the last week of the reporting month, and that he\/she will be paid every two weeks. Respondent completes the next CA 7 and checks the: \”No\” box for income received in the month. (QR) EXAMPLE: Respondent reports on the QR 7 that he\/she began employment the last week of the Data Month, and that he\/she will be paid every two weeks. Respondent completes a subsequent QR 7 and checks the No box for income received in the month. (3) Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(3)(MR) shall become inoperative and Handbook Section 22-305.422(a)(3)(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. The CWD’s omission, neglect, or error in explaining requirements for assistance or in processing information, which does not result in an IPV. (MR) EXAMPLE: Respondent completes CA 7 without answering question relating to household’s receipt of income during the month. Respondent does this for five months and CWD fails to return the CA 7 as incomplete. Evidence establishes respondent had income in each of these months. (QR) EXAMPLE: Respondent completes QR 7 without answering question relating to household’s receipt of income during the Data Month. Respondent does this for two quarters and the county fails to return the QR 7 as incomplete. Evidence establishes respondent had income during the Data Month. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-05-01 Effective 8\/5\/05 Page 175.2 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-305 (Cont.) 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 (Continued) .43 Notice of Hearing – Means the written notification, as specified in Section 22-315.5, which initiates an ADH and is provided as follows: .431 At the state level, CDSS shall provide written notification to the respondent and the CWD and .432 At the local level, the CWD shall provide written notification to the respondent and the CWD-designated unit responsible for presenting the case at the local level hearing. .44 Respondent – Means the member(s) of the assistance unit (AU) who the CWD has determined may be subject to administrative disqualification. To the extent that the provisions of Chapter 22-000 relating to state hearings apply to administrative disqualification hearings, all references to \”claimant\” in such regulations shall be deemed to refer to \”respondent\” for purposes of the ADH. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-04-01 Effective 7\/1\/04 Page 176 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-305 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-305 GENERAL PROVISIONS 22-305 (Continued) .45 Sufficient Evidence – Means the documentary and other evidence in the CWD’s possession that the CWD determines may establish that the respondent has committed an IPV based on a preponderance of evidence as the standard of proof. .5 The following provisions of Chapter 22-000, State Hearings – General, shall be applicable to ADHs: (a) Section 22-002 relating to determination of time limit; (b) Section 22-010 relating to authorized representatives; (c) Section 22-023.13 relating to assignment of county representatives; (d) Sections 22-023.2 and .3 relating to duties of county representatives prior to and at the hearing; (e) Section 22-027 relating to situations where the hearing is held in a county other than the responsible county; (f) Sections 22-045.1 and .2 relating to the time and place of the hearing; (g) Section 22-049 relating to general rules and procedures at the hearing, excluding .11; (h) Section 22-050 relating to evidence; (i) Section 22-051 relating to the examination of records and issuance of subpoenas; (j) Section 22-052 relating to witness fees and mileage; (k) Section 22-053.2 relating to continuances for additional evidence; (l) Section 22-055 relating to disqualification of ALJs; (m) Section 22-059 relating to communications after the hearing. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: Sections 11265.1, 11265.2, and 11265.3, Welfare and Institutions Code; and 45 CFR 235.112(b) and .113(b)(2). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-04-01 Effective 7\/1\/04 Page 177 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-315 (Cont.) 22-310 REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICES OF PENALTIES FOR IPVS 22-310 The CWD shall provide all applicants with a written notice of the disqualification penalties for IPVs under this section at the time of the application. Respondents who are recipients on the date of approval of the State Plan amendment implementing this optional program must be provided a written notice no later than the next redetermination for AFDC eligibility. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.112(d) and 45 CFR 235.113(b)(3). 22-315 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-315 .1 When the CWD determines, based on sufficient evidence, that a respondent is subject to disqualification from the AFDC program because of a suspected IPV and determines the respondent should be disqualified in accordance with Chapter 20-300, the CWD shall send the completed request for hearing to: .11 The Administrative Adjudications Division of CDSS for the scheduling of an ADH at the state level; or .12 The CWD-designated unit for the scheduling of an ADH at the local level. .2 The request specified in Section 22-315.1 shall set forth the charges against the respondent, contain a summary of the evidence, and identify the specific disqualification period believed to be appropriate. .21 The notification shall be reviewed and signed by a county supervisory employee to ensure that sufficient evidence exists for an IPV hearing request. .3 CDSS shall monitor that the requests sent pursuant to Section 22-315.1 are appropriate for IPV consideration in that they represent cases in which sufficient evidence has been identified to warrant the scheduling of such hearings. .4 The ALJ in the state level hearing, or the hearing official in the local level hearing, shall base the determination of an IPV on the preponderance of evidence that is in the hearing record. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 178 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-315 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-315 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-315 (Continued) .5 CDSS for the state level hearing, or the CWD for the local level hearing, shall send a written notice to the respondent alleged to have committed the IPV which is received by the respondent at least 30 days prior to the date of the disqualification hearing. The notice shall be either personally served or sent by first class regular mail. If no proof of receipt is obtained, evidence of nonreceipt by the household member shall be considered good cause for not appearing at the hearing. The notice shall include the following: (a) The date, time and location of the hearings; (b) The charge(s) against the respondent; (c) A summary of the evidence, and how and where the evidence can be examined; (d) A warning that the respondent’s failure to appear without good cause shall result in a decision by the ALJ or hearing official based solely on the information provided by the CWD at the hearing; (e) A statement that the respondent may request a postponement of the hearing as specified in Section 22-325 provided that such request is made to CDSS, or CWD in the case of a local level hearing, at least 10 days in advance of the scheduled hearing; (f) A statement that the respondent may request a postponement within 10 days of the hearing if good cause is present; (g) A statement that the respondent has 10 days from the date of the scheduled hearing to present to CDSS at the state level, or CWD in the case of a local level hearing, good cause for failure to appear in order to receive a new hearing; (h) A description of the penalties that can result from a determination that the respondent has committed an IPV and a statement of which penalty is applicable to the respondent; (i) A statement that the hearing does not preclude the county or state government from prosecuting the respondent for an IPV in a civil or criminal court action, or from collecting an overpayment; CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 179 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-315 22-315 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-315 (Continued) (j) A listing of individuals or organizations that provide free legal representation to individuals alleged to have committed IPVs; (k) An explanation that the respondent may waive his\/her right to appear at an ADH (see Section 22- 320); and (l) A statement of the respondent’s right to remain silent concerning the charge(s) and that anything said or signed by the respondent concerning the charge(s) may be used against him\/her in a court of law. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.113(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(8). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 179.1 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-320 (Cont.) 22-320 WAIVER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-320 .1 The respondent shall be allowed to waive his\/her right to appear at an ADH. .2 The respondent shall be informed by the written notice as specified in Section 22-315.5(k) of the opportunity to waive his\/her right to a hearing. .21 The statement that the respondent may waive the right to appear at an ADH shall include at a minimum: .211 The information that the respondent has 20 days from the date of the notice to submit the signed waiver form to the Department in the case of a state level hearing, or to the CWD in the case of a local level hearing. If the respondent fails to sign and return the waiver request within such time period, the ADH shall be held as scheduled. .212 A signature block for the respondent’s and the caretaker relative’s signature. (a) A statement that the caretaker relative must sign if the respondent is not the caretaker relative. .213 A statement of the respondent’s right to remain silent concerning the charge(s) and that anything said or signed by the respondent concerning the charge(s) may be used against him or her in a court of law; .214 A statement of the fact that waiver of the respondent’s right to appear at a disqualification hearing may result in a disqualification penalty and a reduction in the assistance payment for the appropriate period even if the respondent does not admit to the facts as presented by the CWD; and .215 A statement specifying that the respondent has an opportunity to specify whether or not he\/she admits to the facts as presented by the CWD. .216 A statement in bold print that says, \”DO NOT SIGN THIS IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!.\” .3 The CWD shall inform the respondent by written notice that a request for a state\/local level ADH has been filed by the CWD and that he\/she may waive the right to an ADH through a pre-hearing waiver process. .31 The written notice shall be provided in person or by mail pursuant to Section 22-315.5 et seq., except Section 22-315.5(a). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 180 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-320 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-320 WAIVER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING 22-320 (Continued) .311 The notice shall contain a request for the respondent to contact a specified representative of the CWD to set a meeting date, time, and location. .32 The waiver shall be as described in Section 22-320.21. .321 The notice shall contain language that informs the respondent that he\/she may rescind the waiver within seven (7) working days after the date the waiver was signed if, after signing the waiver, the respondent changes his\/her mind. .33 The CWD shall not use threats, coercion, or the promise of leniency with respect to criminal prosecution in obtaining the respondent’s signature on a waiver. .4 When the respondent waives his\/her right to appear at a disqualification hearing, the disqualification and appropriate reduction of assistance shall result regardless of whether the respondent admits or denies the charges. .41 CDSS, or the CWD in the case of a local level hearing, shall send a written notice informing the respondent of the period of disqualification (which shall begin no later than the first day of the second month which follows the date of notice), and the amount of payment the unit will receive during the disqualification period. .42 If a case has been terminated the disqualification period shall be imposed after a reapplication for AFDC assistance is approved. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(e)(10); 7 CFR 273.16(f)(1); and 45 CFR 235.113(c)(1), (2), and (3). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-96-04 Effective 8\/17\/96 Page 181 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-325 22-325 POSTPONEMENTS 22-325 .1 An ADH at both the state and local level shall be automatically postponed at the respondent’s request provided that the request for postponement is made at least 10 days in advance of the date of the scheduled disqualification hearing. .11 For written requests, the letter must be postmarked at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date. .12 For verbal requests, the controlling date is the date the respondent initially called and spoke with a worker to request a postponement. .2 Postponements shall be allowed within the 10-day period prior to the hearing date but shall be granted only on the basis of good cause being present as per Section 22-053.16. .3 The hearing shall not be postponed for more than a total of 30 days. .4 The number of postponements shall be limited to one. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.113(b)(4). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 181.1 This page is intentionally left blank. STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-330 (Cont.) 22-330 HEARING PROCEDURES 22-330 .1 Local level and state level IPV ADHs shall be conducted pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 22-000. .11 The hearing shall be conducted by an impartial ALJ at the state level, or an impartial hearing official at the local level who has not had previous involvement in the case. .12 The ALJ and local level hearing officials shall prepare fair, impartial, and independent decisions. .2 Medical assessments shall be obtained at the expense of CDSS and made part of the record if the ALJ or hearing official considers it necessary. .3 The respondent or his\/her representative shall have adequate opportunity to: .31 Examine the contents of the case file, and all documents and records to be used at the hearing by CDSS at the state level, or the CWD at the local level, at a reasonable time before the date of the hearing, and during the hearing; .32 Present the case himself\/herself or with the aid of an authorized representative; .33 Bring witnesses; .34 Establish all pertinent facts and circumstances; .35 Advance any arguments without undue influence; and .36 Question or refute any testimony or evidence, including the opportunity to confront and cross- examine adverse witnesses. .4 CDSS at the state level, or the CWD at the local level, shall combine a respondent’s Food Stamp and AFDC ADHs into a single hearing if the factual issues arise out of the same or related circumstances. .5 CDSS at the state level may consolidate a respondent’s state hearing governed by 45 CFR 205.10 with a disqualification hearing based on the same or related circumstances provided that the respondent receives prior written notice of the consolidation. .51 If the hearings are combined, CDSS shall follow the time frames for conducting ADHs. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 182 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-330 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-330 HEARING PROCEDURES 22-330 (Continued) .6 Both the CWD and the claimant shall have the right to have a representative present throughout the hearing. .7 Both the CWD’s representative and the claimant’s representative as specified in Section 22-330.6 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, then he\/she may not be present as an adviser until after he\/she has testified. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.112(a) and 45 CFR 235.113(b)(1), (5), (6), and (7). 22-335 LOCAL LEVEL HEARINGS 22-335 .1 Subject to CDSS approval of a county’s ADH plan, counties may choose to provide ADHs at the local level with a right to appeal to a state level de novo hearing. .2 If a local level disqualification hearing determines that a household member committed an IPV, the notification of hearing decision specified in Section 22-340.7 shall also inform the household member: .21 Of the right to appeal the decision within 25 days after the date the notice has been sent to the respondent by the county (see Section 22-340.6); .22 Of the date the disqualification will take effect unless a state level hearing is requested; and .23 That benefits shall be continued pending a state level hearing if the household is otherwise eligible. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 183 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-340 (Cont.) 22-335 LOCAL LEVEL HEARINGS 22-335 (Continued) .3 If the household member appeals the local level decision, the advance notice of the state level hearing, as specified in Section 22-315 shall be mailed to the respondent at least 15 days prior to the date of the scheduled state level hearing. .4 When a local level decision is appealed, CDSS shall conduct the state level de novo hearing, arrive at a decision, and notify the household member and local agency of the decision within 60 days of the date the household member appealed its case. .41 The local level decision shall not be taken into consideration by the state ALJ in making the final determination. .5 In all other respects, local level disqualification hearings shall be handled in accordance with the procedures specified in this chapter for state level hearings. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 7 CFR 273.16(e)(10)(i); 45 CFR 235.113(b), (b)(2), (b)(11), and (b)(12). 22-340 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – DECISIONS 22-340 .1 Decisions made by the ALJ or hearing official shall be based exclusively on evidence and other material introduced in the hearing record. .11 The transcript or recording of testimony, exhibits, or official reports introduced at the hearing, together with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, and the decision of the ALJ or hearing official shall be made available to the respondent or to his\/her representative at a reasonable time and place. .2 After the hearing has been closed, the ALJ or hearing official shall prepare a written decision. .3 Decisions by the hearing authority shall: .31 In the event of a local level hearing, consist of a decision memorandum summarizing the facts and identifying the regulations supporting the decision; CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 184 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-340 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-340 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – DECISIONS 22-340 (Continued) .32 In the event of any CDSS hearing, specify the reasons for the decision and identify the supporting evidence and regulations; and .33 Be made within 90 days from the date of the notice scheduling the hearing. (Sixty days from the request for a state level de novo hearing after a local level hearing decision.) .4 The Director or Chief Administrative Law Judge or his\/her designee shall have the authority to reject the proposed decision of the ALJ and prepare a separate decision based upon the record in the case or to order an additional hearing. .5 A copy of the hearing decision shall be mailed to the respondent and to the CWD. .6 The CWD may not disqualify a respondent unless the decision of the ALJ finds that the respondent has committed an IPV or the respondent fails to request a state level de novo hearing within 25 days of the notice of an adverse local level hearing decision that proposes to disqualify the respondent has been sent to the respondent. .61 The CWD is not precluded from discontinuing, terminating, suspending, or reducing assistance, or changing the manner or form of payment to a protective, vendor, or two-party payment for other reasons. HANDBOOK BEGINS HERE .611 For example, the CWD may have facts which substantiate that the AU failed to report a change in circumstances even though the CWD has not yet demonstrated that the failure to report was an IPV. HANDBOOK ENDS HERE .7 If the decision of the ALJ, or hearing official at the local level hearing, finds that the respondent committed an IPV, the CWD shall provide a written notice to the respondent prior to disqualification. .71 The notice shall inform the respondent of the following: .711 The decision and the reason for the decision; CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-03 Effective 6\/19\/95 Page 185 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW Regulations AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL 22-345 (Cont.) 22-340 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – DECISIONS 22-340 (Continued) .712 The period of disqualification (which shall begin no later than the first day of the second month which follows the date of notice); and .713 The amount of payment the AU will receive during the disqualification period. .72 In cases of a respondent’s disqualification resulting from a prior receipt of assistance, the disqualification shall be postponed until after a reapplication for AFDC assistance is approved. .8 If the respondent does not appear at the state level or local level hearing, a reopening of the case may be requested within 10 days of the hearing by the respondent. If good cause is established, a new hearing shall be scheduled. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.113(b)(3)(ii)(F) and (b)(8) through (12). 22-345 DISQUALIFICATION PENALTIES 22-345 .1 A respondent who, on the basis of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or otherwise, is found to have committed an IPV pursuant to this chapter by a state or local level ADH or by a state or federal court shall be treated in the following manner: .11 The CWD shall not take the respondent’s needs into account when determining the AU’s need and amount of assistance. .12 Any resources and income of the disqualified respondent shall be considered available to the AU. The respondent’s needs shall not be taken into account for six months for the first occasion of any such offense, one year for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense. .2 Any period for which a disqualification penalty is imposed shall remain in effect without possibility of an administrative stay unless, and until, the finding upon which the penalty was based is subsequently reversed by a court of appropriate jurisdiction; but in no event shall the duration of the period for which such penalty is imposed be subject to review. CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 186 STATE HEARING AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW 22-345 (Cont.) AFDC ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS – GENERAL Regulations 22-345 DISQUALIFICATION PENALTIES 22-345 (Continued) .3 A disqualification penalty imposed on a respondent by one Title IV-A (Social Security Act) state agency may be used in determining the appropriate disqualification penalty for the individual by another Title IV-A state agency. .31 When a respondent with a prior violation(s) moves from one state to another and has been found to have committed an IPV(s), the state agency may impose the penalty based on the number of such violations committed in other states. .32 A state may establish interstate agreements with other states to share appropriate information. .4 In cases where a disqualification penalty and other sanctions or penalties apply: .41 The disqualification penalties in Section 22-345 shall be in addition to, and cannot be substituted for, any other sanctions or penalties which may be imposed by law for the same offenses; and .42 The disqualification penalties imposed under this program only affect the respondent concerned and cannot substitute for other sanctions under the AFDC program (e.g., failure to participate in JOBS or to cooperate in obtaining child support). NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 10553 and 10554, Welfare and Institutions Code. Reference: 45 CFR 235.112(c)(1) through (3). CALIFORNIA-DSS-MANUAL-CFC MANUAL LETTER NO. CFC-95-01 Effective 1\/5\/95 Page 187 4cfcman.pdf 5cfcman ”

” 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. ”

” CCWRO MEMO How to get copy of a state hearing tape? DSS POLICY: DSS will provide a copy of the hearing tape free of charge once the hearing decision has been released. DSS requests that claimants and their authorized representatives write to: DSS, SHD State Hearings Support Section P.O. box 944243, M.S. 9-17-37 Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTN: Nicko Chaney (916) 653-3836 The request for a hearing tape must include the following information: 1. Name of the Claimant 2. State Hearing # 3. Date of the Hearing 4. Name of the Judge If the claimant was not represented and now has a representative, please include a release form in the letter. If you need any assistance with state hearing issues, please contact CCWRO for assistance. Date: ____________ _________________________________________ Requestor Signature 1 Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. 1901 Alhambra Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95816-7012 Phone: (916) 736-0616 Fax: (916) 736-2645 Cell: (916) 712-0071 [email protected] ccwro.org Date: Text1: Text3: Text4: ”

” CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 1 — I. — Introduction and Scope of the Protocol The mission of the State Hearings Division (SHD) is to resolve disputes of applicants and recipients of public social service programs in an impartial, independent, fair and timely manner, ensuring that due process is met in accordance with federal and state law. Whenever an issue arises regarding SHD’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal prior to the hearing, SHD has three options: 1) To allow the scheduled hearing to proceed on both jurisdiction and substantive issues; 2) To limit the scheduled hearing to jurisdiction issues only; or, 3) In limited circumstances, to dismiss the appeal administratively, without a hearing or written decision. This protocol provides guidance to Presiding Administrative Judges (PALJ) or the PALJ’s designee and to Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) in evaluating a request to bifurcate a case. Bifurcating a case means that that appeal is separated, with an initial hearing held that is limited to reviewing the jurisdictional issue(s) as provided under Division 22 of the Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP)1, section 22-049.53. A hearing on the merits to review the actual issues for appeal will only occur if the SHD finds jurisdiction (power to hear) the case. This guidance also clarifies the process for cases in which there may be an improper requestor or unauthorized representative requesting a hearing. Bifurcations can occur in two ways: prior to the hearing: a bifurcation may be granted by authority of the PALJ where a party submits a written request to a regional PALJ (see 22-049.531); or, at a non-bifurcated hearing: the hearing judge can accept the agreement of the parties (made prior to or during the hearing), to limit the initial hearing to a review of only whether the SHD jurisdiction to hear the appeal issue, or the hearing ALJ may decide, on his or her own, to bifurcate a case to hear only the jurisdictional challenges. (See 22-049.532.) The SHD Appeals Case Management System (ACMS) has a single task for both a request for Bifurcation and a request for Administrative Dismissal. Section II discusses Bifurcations; Section III discusses Administrative Dismissals. — II. — Prehearing Request for Bifurcation Under normal circumstances, unless bifurcation has been granted prior to the hearing, and even in those situations where an agency challenges jurisdiction for a case or issue to be heard, all parties must be prepared to provide evidence on both the jurisdictional issues and 1 All regulatory references are to Division 22 of the CDSS Manual of Policies and Procedures unless otherwise stated. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 2 substantive matter of the case. (MPP 22-049.53; this includes the mandate that agencies timely make available their Statement of Position (SOP); see Welf. & Inst. Code, 10952.5, MPP 22-073.25, .252.) For protocols related to when someone who is not a claimant (as defined by MPP 22-001(c)(2)) or who requests a hearing on behalf of a claimant without submitting authorization to be the Authorized Representative, see Section C.2 below. A. Requesting the Bifurcation Prior to a hearing, any party may request bifurcation. The request must be in writing and submitted to the PALJ; the requesting party must send a copy of the request to the other party. (MPP 22-049.531.) 1. When the claimant has an ACMS account and elected a preference for email communications, the agency is considered to have provided a copy to the claimant upon uploading the document into ACMS. The claimant will receive an email notification that new document is available in ACMS. 2. When the claimant does not have an ACMS account or has elected postal communication preference in ACMS, the agency must indicate on or with its request for bifurcation that it sent a copy of the request to the claimant. This can be an indication that the claimant was copied on the email, fax cover or cover letter to a postal mailing. As a best practice, the party making the bifurcation request should submit it 5 business days or more prior to the hearing for the PALJ to determine whether to grant or deny the request. Otherwise, the PALJ won’t be able to act on the request, and hearing will not be pre-designated as bifurcated. The requesting party may renew the request at the hearing, and the Administrative Law Judge will determine whether to bifurcate the matter. The agency shall prepare its Statement of Position (SOP) on the merits unless it receives a response from SHD granting the bifurcation. See Section C.(2)(b) below regarding preparing SOPs when the case is flagged as having an Improper Requestor. The bifurcation request should include detailed reasons with supporting evidence for why the case should bifurcated to address the jurisdictional issues separately, and for any opposition to the request, why the case should be heard all at once. Without clear, demonstrated and documented support for the need to bifurcate, the case will proceed to hearing on both the jurisdictional issues and issues on the merits. The burden is on the requesting party to show why the judge should not hear all issues together. The considerations involved in the PALJ’s decision to grant or deny a prehearing bifurcation request involve ensuring fairness to the parties and the efficient use of resources. The following bases and considerations are guidelines for the PALJ’s exercise of discretion in ruling on prehearing requests for bifurcation. B. Potential Bases and Factors Supporting Granting the Request for Bifurcation 1. Late Filings: SHD may grant a bifurcation request when the jurisdictional issue is whether the claimant filed the appeal or the request for hearing too late. A claimant must file a CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 3 timely hearing request for SHD to have jurisdiction over the claim on the merits. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951(a), for Affordable Care Act, 10, Cal. Code Reg, 6606(c).) The time the claimant took to file a request for hearing can greatly exceed the 90 days, if the claimant did not receive an adequate and language-compliant Notice of Action (NOA) (see 22-009.1, .11)2. Also, the time to file a request for hearing following receipt of an adequate and language- compliant NOA may be extended up to (but not to exceed) 180 days3 if the judge finds good cause for the late filing. At the prehearing stage of the proceedings, the strictest standards must be applied prior to depriving the claimant of the opportunity to present their case to an ALJ at a hearing on the merits. PALJs therefore may wish to only consider granting a request for bifurcation for filings that are within180 days from the date of the notice of action only where there is a high likelihood that the Notice of action will be found to be adequate, to avoid an extra hearing when good cause can be asserted and to more quickly resolve cases. PALJs may wish to act immediately on CalFresh tax intercepts, as the intercept will remain active for filings made more than 90 days after the notice until there is a ruling finding jurisdiction, or for filings more than 180 days after notice, upon a ruling on the merits favorable to the claimant. For bifurcation requests based on late filing, the PALJ will also take into consideration the factors listed in #8 below (complexity and multiplicity of issues), to ensure judicial economy while preserving due process. (See basis for dismissing on a late filed request for hearing in 22-054.32.) a. For Medi-Cal Scope of Benefit Cases: Due to changes to federal regulations issued from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), SHD and DHCS revised statutes to provide that Medi-Cal managed care enrollees who receive a notice of adverse benefit determination must first internally appeal to the managed care plan; the plan has 30 days to respond. After the plan issues its notice of appeal resolution, the claimant has 120 days to request a state hearing. Generally, a claimant’s right to a state hearing arises only after the in-plan appeal process is exhausted and the premature filing of a state hearing does not toll the timeframe for filing that in -plan appeal. As such, depending on the specific facts, bifurcation (or dismissal) may occur on the basis that the claim is not yet ripe so that the claimant does not inadvertently wait for the state hearing only to learn that the window to file the in plan appeal has closed. However, if an in plan appeal was filed and the plan fails to respond to the in-plan appeal within 30 days, or if the plan failed to meet any of the requisite notice and timeliness requirements (see Exhaustion processes below in II.C.6.a. below), the claimant may be deemed to have exhausted the plan appeal process and may immediately proceed to a state hearing. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951((b), as amended Stats. 2017, ch. 738, 3, (A.B. 205), eff. Jan. 1, 2018.) If the claimant is found to have a state hearing right under the above standards, the same bifurcation considerations would apply. For example, an agency may consider requesting bifurcation if a person has exhausted the in-plan grievance rights but then did not timely ask for a state hearing. 2. Lack of Claimant Standing: Section 22-003.1 provides that a state hearing shall be available to a claimant who is dissatisfied with a county action and requests a state hearing. 2 If a caregiver requests an informal hearing on a foster care overpayment claim, the 90-day period to request a formal hearing is suspended until a formal denial is issued (see 45-306.3). 3 Subdivision (d) also provides that: This section shall not preclude the application of the principles of equity jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law. This provision provides equitable relief for unconscionable acts by agency staff that reasonably delay a claimant from filing their appeal timely, even beyond 180 days. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 4 Bifurcation can occur if there is sufficient concern that the person filing the request for hearing does not have standing (the power to present a claim) as a claimant 4 in SHD’s forum. SHD’s Improper Requestor process is used to flag a hearing request for follow up when SHD could not determine, through the appeal validation process, whether an individual is a proper claimant for the CDSS hearing (see Section A, below), or whether the person requesting the hearing is an individual who has not yet been authorized to be a claimant’s representative (see Section B, below). If the person who asked for the hearing is neither a claimant nor an authorized AR, there is a standing question that must be resolved before that person can have a hearing on the merits of the appealed issue. ( 22-049.54.). This is necessary to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information to unauthorized persons. a. When person who asked for hearing is not an applicant or recipient of aid: SHD must dismiss appeals if the person requesting the hearing does not have Standing (the power to present an appeal). (MPP 22-054.35.) Anyone who meets the definition of claimant set forth in MPP 22-001(c)(2) has standing. Some individuals are defined as claimants, although not the actual applicant or recipient of benefits or service. This includes: Unaided parents, caretaker relatives, or foster parents for children in their care Conservators and Guardians of individuals Executor\/executrix or administrator\/administratrix of a deceased claimant’s estate, or, if the estate is not in probate, an intestate heir The sponsor of an immigrant Some individuals or entities may have benefits at issue but not be within CDSS SHD jurisdiction. For example, in Medi-Cal Scope of Benefit Cases, health care providers may file appeals for a variety of reasons, including lack of Medi-Cal provider payments. These are treated as standing challenges, as the person\/entity requesting the hearing is not a proper claimant for the CDSS SHD hearings, even though they may be a claimant for provider hearings\/billing disputes heard by another hearing entity. If it is not clear that the person who asked for a hearing is a CDSS state hearings claimant, such as when SHD\/the county cannot verify the person as an applicant\/recipient of aid\/services, SHD will flag the case as an improper requestor. Agencies may also request that the case be flagged for standing. This is done when creating an appeal by selecting the Improper Requestor \/ Yes option and entering the reason. For existing appeals, this is done through New Task and selecting Task Type\/Improper Requestor and completing the required information (task notes and task reason) for improper claimants. All cases initially flagged as a potential Improper Requester are sent for review by the Improper Requestor unit for review. After SHD review by the Improper Requestor Unit staff, if the Improper Requestor status is confirmed, staff will enter the Improper Requestor flag. ACMS then will generate a letter stating that SHD does not have proof allowing you to represent the 4 For the Affordable Care Act, claimants are appellants ; for the Resource Family Approval program, claimants are respondents ; the rules on having standing apply to all three groups of individuals. For this protocol, all these individuals will continue to be referred to as claimants. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 5 person who applied for or gets benefits (the claimant). Also, the claimant has not told us that they want a hearing. The letter asks the claimant to call or to send in written authorization appointing the AR. If not confirmed, no case flag will be entered in ACMS. When SHD has resolved the standing issue, the agency hearing representative will receive an email notification stating, As the identified hearing representative, this is to notify you that the improper claimant issue for (case number) has been resolved. b. If SHD has not been able to resolve the standing issue: The hearing will be scheduled with the appeal flagged for Improper Requestor. If the matter is not resolved prior to hearing, the judge will need to determine whether the claimant has standing as a claimant, or the AR properly appointed, to have a hearing on the merits of the appeal. Since the agency cannot release confidential information, if the improper requestor flag is still in the ACMS appeal 10 days prior to hearing, the agency is only required to prepare an SOP that addresses standing since it cannot reveal confidential information. As always, however, counties must be prepared to present why they took the challenged action. Agencies may wish to prepare two SOPs, one only on standing and one on the merits if the standing issue is resolved less than 10 days prior to the hearing. This is particularly recommended when the person who requested the hearing is a relative or is someone familiar with the facts of the case and who has completed the statement of facts to apply for benefits and the applicant\/beneficiary is not competent. (See MPP 22-085.23 permitting a judge to determine such individuals may be the AR.) If the judge is able to make a determination during the hearing that a proper claimant made the request for hearing, and the claimant waives an SOP on the merits (if one was not available), the full hearing can occur on that date if the parties agree and are prepared to proceed, or at a later time. Regular postponement, open record and continued hearing processes apply. Otherwise, the hearing on the merits will be scheduled after the ruling on the claimant’s standing. If the ruling on standing is not made on the record at the initial bifurcated hearing, within 10 days of the standing hearing, the judge must issue either issue a decision dismissing the case for lack of standing, or issue a written determination regarding the finding on jurisdiction. (MPP 22-049.532.) If the judge finds jurisdiction, the judge will request a continued hearing through ACMS; ACMS will generate the notice of hearing. c. When person who asked for hearing is an unconfirmed representative: A different type of standing issue is raised when a person other than someone defined as a claimant asks for a hearing on behalf of the person who meets the definition of a claimant, and SHD has no written authorization appointing that person as someone who the claimant has authorized to act on their behalf. State Hearings cannot accept hearing requests made by a person acting on a claimant’s behalf when SHD doesn’t have written authorization (which includes telephonic signatures) from the proper claimant. Also, without written authorization agencies are not allowed to share case records with an individual who does not appear to have valid authority to represent a claimant. (See MPP 19-004 for who may have access to confidential information; 19-005.1 addressing CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 6 eligibility information provided by applicant\/recipient; and Welf. & Inst. Code 10850.2 providing the right to access for applicants\/recipients). MPP Section 19-005.2 provides that authorization to represent an individual must be written, signed by the applicant or recipient; the authorization expires in one year unless they are expressly limited to a shorter period or revoked. In cases involving pending appeals, the time period, unless the authorization is expressly limited or revoked, shall extend to the final disposition of the issue involved in the fair hearing. Note that for Medi-Cal and Covered California cases, people can designate an Authorized Representative (AR) on the application5, and it will remain in effect until the expiration date or until canceled. State law provides for electronic and telephonic signatures (see Code Civ. Proc., 1633.1, et seq.), which will meet the requirement for written authorization. In ACMS, people can appoint (and delete) their authorized representative from their appeal. d. Improper Requestor processing: When SHD or the county believes a person who is not a claimant (as defined by MPP 22-001(c)(2)) requests a hearing on someone else’s behalf without proper designation to be the representative, the case will be flagged as an Improper Requestor. This will generate a reminder letter to the person who requested the hearing. The letter includes the current state Appointment of AR form, the DPA 19. The DPA 19 is not required to be returned; the letter sets out other examples of acceptable documentation of appointment. This can include a written statement by a law firm regarding their appointment, as they may be subject to bar discipline if they misrepresent their status. This can also include the Department of Health Care Services’ MC 382 or MC 383 forms. Designation of an AR through the ACMS appeal filing is considered a written authorization. A signed and dated written authorization is presumed to be valid, but this presumption is rebuttable (see 22-085.11). The authorization need not be executed subsequent to an agency’s adverse action which has led to the filing of the hearing request or appeal. Once flagged, all the same processes described in Section A above will apply. SHD now has a telephonic signature process, applicable any time a claimant wishes to appoint an AR. After confirming the claimant’s identity, SHD will read a script regarding the appointment and obtain the person’s telephonic signature. The telephonic signature is the equivalent of a written document. SHD will upload the recorded telephonic signature into ACMS within 24-48 hours. Once the telephonic signature recording or any other document appointing the AR is provided to SHD and uploaded to ACMS, the agencies will be notified that the Improper Requestor flag was removed, and can view the written authorization appointing the AR. e. Bifurcation requests on standing or representation challenges: Although the Improper Requestor process is available to agencies to request that SHD flag a case for standing, agencies may also follow the bifurcation process. (See MPP 22-049.531; 22-054.31 and .37.) Agencies may wish to seek bifurcation when issues in addition to the standing issues are present. 5 Telephonic signatures are now being used by Covered California in our ACA cases, and under the PPACA, Medicaid applications may now be signed telephonically (see 42 CFR, 435.907(f)). CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 7 An administrative dismissal may be available where the standing issue includes substantive claims that are not within CDSS SHD jurisdiction. 1) If SHD denies an agency’s request for bifurcation based on lack of standing, the agency shall prepare a SOP that addresses the substantive merits of the claim. The agency can still challenge jurisdiction due to standing at hearing by including that issue in the SOP. 2) If SHD grants a bifurcation request due to lack of claimant standing, the agency shall prepare a limited SOP on jurisdiction that excludes potentially privileged\/confidential information. If the ALJ determines jurisdiction to hear the matter, if the claimant waives the SOP on the merits (if one was not prepared), and the parties agree the hearing on the merits may go forward. (See MPP a 22-049.5.) Otherwise, the matter will be set for a continued hearing, for which the agency shall prepare a substantive merits SOP. 3) If SHD has already granted the bifurcation due to lack of claimant standing but either SHD or the agency receives sufficient documentation that negates the reason for the bifurcation, such as evidence that a claimant or a claimant-authorized representative indeed filed the hearing request, SHD shall notify the parties and the scheduled hearing will proceed as though it had not been bifurcated. Agencies must be prepared to present the case on the merits, and if able, prepare a written SOP on the merits. An SOP on the merits is required if the agency receives SHD notification that the standing issue resolved at least 10 day prior to the hearing, and otherwise should make best efforts to prepare one. The standard process for a claimant postponement if there is no SOP on the merits available two business days prior to hearing applies. 3. Identical Issue and Parties Previously Decided on the Merits6 An agency may request a bifurcated hearing when there is sufficient concern that the claimant has filed on identical issue that had already been heard and where there has been a previous state hearing decision on the merits involving the same parties (see 22-054.34). a. Distinguished from Non-Appearance Dismissals: If the first request for hearing was dismissed by decision due to the claimant’s nonappearance (see 22-054.22, .221), it is not a dismissal on the merits of the claimant’s claim. The claimant thus may have their claim heard, if the claimant shows good cause for not appearing at the previous hearing, and, if applicable, establishes good cause for not making a request to have the first dismissal set aside within 30 days7 of receipt of the dismissal decision (see 22-054.22, .222). If, however, the claimant files a new appeal or hearing request on the same issue as the one dismissed for non-appearance within the time limits set out in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10951, the request is treated as timely and scheduled for a hearing. Since there was no prior decision on the merits, there is no bar on a new\/timely hearing request. In this circumstance, the claimant does not need to request relief from the non-appearance dismissal, unless the claimant wishes to reestablish aid paid pending. 6 Section 22-054.34 has been revised and now states: The Administrative Law Judge determines that the identical issue has been the subject of a previous state hearing decision on the merits involving the same claimant. 7 Section 22-054.222 has been amended to increase the time from 15 to 30 days for a non-appearance dismissed claimant to request setting aside the dismissal and setting a new hearing by providing good cause for the claimant’s non-appearance. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 8 To reestablish aid pending the hearing, the claimant would need request to reopen the appeal and establish good cause for setting aside the non-appearance dismissal. (See 22- 054.222(a)(1) and 22-054.222(a)(2) cross-referencing 22-053.113; also see Notes from the Training Bureau, Item 07-11-2 (issued Nov. 28, 2007), Division 22 Questions and Answers .) However, if a claimant initially had appealed an issue where the notice was inadequate or not language compliant and then did not timely request to reopen a non-appearance dismissal, the claimant already had access to due process to challenge the action. If the claimant does not appear at that hearing and does not request (and receive) a reopening of the appeal, the lack of adequate notice will not be a basis for a new hearing that is otherwise not timely. 4. Compliance Issue8 An agency may request bifurcation when the agency has sufficient concern that the claimant filed a hearing request regarding an assertion that the agency failed to comply with an order in a prior state hearing decision (see 22-001(c)(3)). A hearing request raising an issue of compliance with a prior hearing order is subject to dismissal (see 22-054.37), and thus can be the basis for a bifurcation hearing. When a PALJ or designee determines that the issue raised on a new request for hearing is a compliance issue, the PALJ or designee will review the county’s compliance report and follow up with the county on the status of the county’s compliance. This is distinguished from a compliance-related issue, where the hearing request is regarding an action taken by the agency after further determination as ordered in the prior decision. (See MPP 22-001(c)(4).) The claimant has regular hearing rights on any new notice of action issued as a result of this further determination by the agency, and therefore such an appeal would not be the basis for a bifurcation hearing. 5. Resource Family Approval Bifurcation Issues The Resource Family Approval (RFA) appeals are governed by the Written Directives (WD) and the MPP. WD Section 12-O6A(a) requires all Requests for Hearing (RFH) to be in writing. A verbal RFH is subject to a bifurcation request. The counties retain authority to make the initial jurisdiction choice. There are RFA hearings that are necessarily subject to the Office of Administrative Hearing jurisdiction, and others subject to SHD jurisdiction. The county (through counsel) may request a bifurcation and dismissal to remove the case from SHD and remand the same to OAH. (WD Section 12-10.) 6. Lack of Substance Matter Jurisdiction9 An agency may request bifurcation (and\/or administrative dismissal) when the issue raised in a state hearing is not a substantive issue that is within SHD’s jurisdiction (see 22-003.1 and 22-054.31). Generally, the issues over which the SHD has jurisdiction are listed in Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 10950, Government Code, Section 100506.1, subdivision (a), and for the ACA, title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 6602. 8 Compliance issues are also potentially subject to an administrative dismissal ( 22-054.4). 9 Substantive issues that are not within SHD’s jurisdiction may also be subject to an administrative dismissal ( 22- 054.4). CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 9 a. Challenges to Substantive Jurisdiction in Scope Cases: A Scope of Benefits case may be bifurcated (or dismissed prior to a hearing) where there is no subject matter jurisdiction; this is a different basis for bifurcation than the exhaustion of in-plan appeal processes listed above. For example, claimants may file appeals in which the grievance is regarding their primary physicians, other state agencies acting in their legislative and policy promulgation functions, managed care issues falling under the jurisdiction of the Department of Managed Health Care, Social Security relating to Part B premiums or reductions in Part D prescription drug benefits, informational notices that have no impact on a claimant’s rights, a perceived procedural denial before a TAR is submitted and denied, Medi-Cal lien issues or the Estate Recovery Program, changes in state law such as for Medi-Cal Optional Benefits, or DHCS’ Third-Party Liability Branch, only to mention a few. All these are the types of claims over which CDSS SHD has no jurisdiction, and about which an agency may wish to request bifurcation and\/or administrative dismissals. SHD would have jurisdiction over Letters of Authority, which can address retroactive medical bills, and Conlan claims, however, even though these relate to provider issues, they are Medi-Cal issues held by the beneficiary. 6. Pre-Hearing Full Agency Resolution10 of Claim Administrative Law Judges may dismiss an appeal by written decision when the issue is no longer in dispute if the claimant files a hearing request, but at hearing, there is proof presented that the issue has been fully resolved by a final agency action (see 22-054.38). This would not be subject to an administrative dismissal, as it involves a factual finding. The exception is for Rivera cases (failure to timely process Medi-Cal applications) which will be administratively dismissed if the county submits a notice of action addressing the application determination with its request for dismissal. When more than one person is applying, the county should submit a notice(s) of action addressing the eligibility of all applicants. Claimants may request rehearing on such a dismissal but are instructed to request a new hearing if they disagree with the notice of eligibility determination. If the notice of the application eligibility determination issued close to the hearing date, and the parties can agree to discuss the merits at the hearing scheduled for a Rivera appeal, the judge will issue a decision on the merits of the county’s eligibility finding. 7. Complexity and\/or Multiplicity of Issues Where there is a potential jurisdictional concern as discussed above, judicial economy may be best served in granting a request for bifurcation where the issues are sufficiently complex, or where there are numerous issues, which would potentially take an inordinate amount of time in hearing. 8. Appeals from Managed Care Plan Determinations Due to changes to federal regulations issued from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made effective July 1, 2017, the legislature revised statutes to provide that Medi-Cal managed care enrollees who receive a notice of adverse benefit determination must first internally appeal to the managed care plan within 60 days; the plan has 30 days to respond or 72 hours in an expedited case. (See Stats. 2017, ch. 738, 3, (A.B. 205), eff. Jan. 1, 2018.) 10 MPP 22-054.38 states: The Administrative Law Judge determines that the issue is moot based on evidence that it has been fully resolved by a final action. ORD 0716-10 Reg Package, anticipated effective date is June 13, 2018. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 10 If the plan fails to respond or provide adequate notice of its determination (NOABD) as required (see Exhaustion processes below in II.C.6.a. below), or if the plan fails to meet any of its notice or timeliness requirements (this is deemed exhaustion ), the judge may hear the issue on the merits. In addition, if the plan upholds the plan’s denial, the claimant has an additional 90 days to file an appeal with SHD (see Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951((b), as amended Stats. 2017, ch. 738, 3, (A.B. 205), eff. Jan. 1, 2018 If the claimant is required to exhaust an appeal process with the managed care plan before SHD has jurisdiction, the other party (the plan) may request a bifurcation to address this jurisdictional issue, on the allegation that the claimant prematurely appealed to the SHD and is presently in the wrong forum. If there is sufficient evidence that the claimant has not exhausted the plan appeal process, SHD may dismiss the appeal before the hearing with 15-day notice. Otherwise, the plans’ 30-day window to respond to the plan appeal will likely have closed by the time a non-expedited case is being set for hearing. The plan may also request an administrative dismissal (see 22-054.4), but to preserve the claimant’s due process rights to a review of exhaustion and deemed exhaustion by the judge as delineated in state and federal law, SHD will generally address requests for administrative dismissal as requests for bifurcation. For example, where a claimant is required to appeal to a Medi-Cal managed care health plan or have a basis for deemed exhaustion before SHD has jurisdiction over the merits for of the claim (see Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951(b)), the hearing ALJ will address the jurisdictional issues and the merits in the same hearing unless a motion for bifurcation is granted. The agency should prepare a full SOP on both the jurisdictional and merits issues unless a motion for bifurcation is granted. D. The PALJ’s Determination to Deny or Grant A Request to Bifurcate If the PALJ denies the request to bifurcate, a full hearing on the jurisdictional and substantive issues shall proceed (MPP 22-049.531(b)), and the agency’s SOP may continue to raise the jurisdictional claim and must address the substantive issues in the case as discussed above. If the PALJ grants the bifurcation request, ACMS will generate a letter that informs the parties that the hearing shall only be held to determine whether jurisdiction exists to hear the merits of the case ( 22-049.531(a)). The burden of proof is on the moving party to provide sufficient reason and evidence that the case should not proceed on both the jurisdictional issues and issues on the merits. If bifurcation is granted, the agency shall only be required to submit an SOP addressing the jurisdictional issues as discussed above. If the PALJ grants the request for bifurcation, the case is then set to commence before a hearing ALJ solely to determine whether jurisdiction exists to hear the merits of the case. 1. Treasury Offset Program (TOP) Cases: If the request to bifurcate based on an untimely filing was regarding a request for hearing about a tax intercept under the federal Treasury Offset Program (TOP), it is a best practice to deny the bifurcation request so that the claimant can have a resolution on both the late filing and the merits of the case. For filings between 90-180 days, FNS will not allow the tax intercept to be stopped until there is a finding of jurisdiction to hear the merits; for cases filed more than 180 CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 11 days the notice of overissuance, FNS will not allow the tax intercept to be stopped until there is a ruling in favor of the claimant on the merits. (See ACL 19-22.) The exception is that SHD does not have jurisdiction if the request for hearing asks for a review of the county Administrative Review determination; SHD has certain limitations on whether a judge can order suspension of a TOP intercept. Only the FNS has jurisdiction to review an Administrative Review. (See ACL 19-22, Attachment 5 to ACL 16-108.) — IIII. — Administrative Dismissals Agencies can opt to request an Administrative Dismissal, or to raise the issue at a bifurcated hearing or at hearing. To request an Administrative dismissal, the agency (or SHD staff) enters a new task, selecting Bifurcation\/Admin Dismissal Request from the drop-down menu. If the agency requests an Administrative Dismissal (or the SHD proceeds on its own), the SHD will issue a letter informing the claimant that it intends to dismiss the appeal and why. The claimant has 15 days to respond. If SHD receives a satisfactory response showing jurisdiction, the matter will be set for hearing; otherwise, the claimant will receive a letter dismissing the claim and stating why. — IV. — Documents Reviewed in Assessing Whether to Bifurcate A. Documents a Party Should Provide with The Request for Bifurcation 1. Burden in requesting bifurcations: The moving party must state the reasons for the bifurcation request and provide all supporting documents and evidence that support the bifurcation, including explanation of why the case should not proceed on both the jurisdictional issues and the issues on the merits. The burden of proof is on the moving party. If there is insufficient evidence that the case needs to be bifurcated, the case will proceed in a unified manner and the hearing ALJ will hear all issues. 2. Potential documents with bifurcation requests: Depending on the basis for the request, additional documents may include: a. Request for Hearing (RFH) The RFH may be written or oral, and will be located in the Documents tab. Written RFHs may be on the back of the Notice of Action (NOA); written on a separate piece of paper; or, a printout of an RFH made online. Oral requests received by the SHD are transcribed and placed in the Documents tab of the ACMS. b. Prior RFHs about the same claim and the prior SOPs addressing those claims c. Pertinent Notices of Action (NOA) d. AR Authorization Forms (such as the DPA 19) or other written appointment e. Information release forms (HIPAA releases, privilege waivers) f. Prior Decisions about the same claim http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/Portals\/9\/ACL\/2019\/19-22.pdf?ver=2019-03-26-083957-593 http:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/lettersnotices\/entres\/getinfo\/acl\/2016\/16-108.pdf CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 12 B. Documents Reviewed for Separate Bases to Dismiss 1. Late Filings a. Review of the Request for Hearing (RFH) should include: Is the claimant the person11 named in the NOA to establish notice? Does the claimant’s address match both the RFH and the NOA, and is the address current? In a CalWORKs or CalFresh matter, a determination of the issue if an overpayment\/overissuance is involved. Is the claimant disputing the underlying cause and amount of a debt (which would require the original notice of action), and\/or is it regarding the legal enforceability of the debt against the claimant, the collection method, or the remaining balance? (SHD always jurisdiction to review these latter issues.) a. Review of the NOA: Review of the NOA should include: Is the NOA adequate? reviewing the four corners of the NOA. Generally, adequacy requires the agency to list the action to be taken, reasons for the action, specific regulations supporting the action, explanation of rights for hearing, if appropriate, when aid paid pending continues or must be repaid, etc. Judges are to look at the specific program requirements for an adequate notice. (See 22-001(a)(1); 22-071; MPP 10-116 and 30- 759.7 [IHSS]; ACL 17-110 [IHSS PS NOAs]; tit. 10 CCR 6454 [ACA]; 12-05(b) RFA Writ. Dir., Vers. 6.1, ACIN I-02-14 and ACIN I-151-82 [CalWORKs only]; 63-801.431 (CalFresh overissuance demand notices); Morales v. McMahon (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 184, 186;45 CFR, 205.10.) If the notice does not meet the program requirements for adequacy, the time to request a hearing has not started (22-009), and the PALJ\/designee reviewing the bifurcation request can stop here, unless there are other bases than an untimely request. If the NOA is in a foreign language, the agency should send an English version of the notice of action if a State translated notice was used. The SHD may need to use interpretative services available to the division to establish what the NOA states in English for the PALJ to assess the bifurcation request. If an interpretation or translation cannot be done swiftly enough, an in- person interpreter should be arranged, so that the judge can receive an interpretation of the notice during hearing (either bifurcated or not). Many Notices have a form number designation that can assist in locating the English form notice. Language services then would only have to translate any free form\/drop down additions. Is the NOA language-compliant (See 22-001(l)(1), 21-115.2, and 21-116.21, and for Medi-Cal, see ACWDL 10-03). The agency should include evidence of the claimant’s language preference if the bifurcation request is based on an untimely appeal. The agency or county has a duty to obtain this form, executed by the claimant with the assistance of a bilingual worker or an interpreter if applicable, establishing the claimant’s preferred written language (see MPP 21-116 and ACL 08-65). If the agency did not present evidence of the claimant’s language preference, the PALJ\/designee 11 For CalFresh, the NOA is issued to the head of household, but collection may be against any household member, so whether the claimant is named may not be relevant to this assessment. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 13 reviewing the bifurcation request can stop here, unless there are other bases than an untimely request. If the NOAs were not issued in the claimant’s language, is the NOA translated by CDSS Language Services? (CDSS translations of notices can be found at https:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/Translated-Forms-and-Publications.) If not, the agency must provide information on how it informed the claimant how to obtain interpretive services (such as issuance of the GEN 1365 or equivalent to inform the claimant of how to get interpretive services). If the agency does not present this evidence, the PALJ\/designee reviewing the bifurcation request can stop here, unless there are other bases than an untimely request. Is there evidence that the claimant received the NOA? Agencies may have journal notes, repayment agreements, or other evidence that the claimant acknowledged receipt of the notice. Is the address on the NOA the claimant’s correct address at the time the NOA issued? The agency can submit verification of the address of record, such as the last application or a SAR 7 reporting a change of address. Did the claimant take over 180 days to file the RFH or appeal following the date the NOA was mailed or given to the claimant? (See 22-009.11; Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951(a)). Because evidence of justifiable good cause (see Welf. & Inst. Code, 10951(a)(2)) for filing the RFH after 90 days is rarely going to be available to the PALJ in assessing the bifurcation request, many regional PALJs may wish to deny the request for bifurcation unless a full 180 days has passed on a late filing claim. PALJs, however, may already have statements of good cause or equity in the documentation for consideration of the bifurcation request. — V. — SHD’s Bifurcation Process A. Request for Bifurcation Sent to the PALJ ( 22-049.531) 1. Upon receipt of a request to bifurcate sent to a regional PALJ, the request will be assessed under the PALJ’s authority. The assessment will be based on the information provided in the request and in documents that accompany the request and will reflect SHD’s mission to provide the best practices in maintaining due process for both parties. 2. SHD will notify both parties as to whether the request to bifurcate has been granted or denied. 3. If SHD granted the request to bifurcate and the agency has been notified of the grant prior to two working days before the scheduled hearing, the agency will only be required to issue an SOP on the jurisdictional issue of the case, or the issue at-hand, and will not be required to address the merits of the case, or the merits of the specific issue under review. https:\/\/www.cdss.ca.gov\/inforesources\/Translated-Forms-and-Publications CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 14 a. If the request to bifurcate is denied, or the agency has not received a response and needs to prepare an SOP so that it is available to the claimant within two business days of the scheduled hearing, the agency must issue a full SOP addressing jurisdictional and substantive issues (see MPP 22-049.53 and 22-073.252). Parties may re- raise the issue of jurisdiction at hearing, and if dissatisfied with the decision, in a request for rehearing. 5. If the request for bifurcation was granted, the ALJ at the hearing will limit the issues to jurisdictional issues for the case or the issue under review that was ordered bifurcated. The ALJ at the hearing, on their own motion or at the request of a party at the hearing, may limit any other issue to a jurisdictional review only, in the exercise of her or his discretion as provided in section 22-049.532. 6. Orally at the jurisdictional hearing, or in writing within ten days after the jurisdictional hearing, the ALJ will provide a ruling on the jurisdictional issue(s). This will either be a written decision dismissing the for lack of jurisdiction, or a finding regarding jurisdiction. If finding jurisdiction, an continued hearing will be scheduled and held to hear the substantive issues. (MPP 22-049.532(a), (b)). a. If the ALJ determines at the bifurcated hearing that there is no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case or bifurcated issue(s), the ALJ will issue a decision dismissing the case or bifurcated issue(s). If other (non-bifurcated) issues were heard at the initial hearing, the ALJ will issue a decision on the merits of those remaining issues. Regular processes regarding open records and continued hearings apply to any portion of the hearing heard on the merits. Upon closure of the record, the ALJ will issue a decision. b. If the ALJ determines jurisdiction exists to hear the merits of the case, the ALJ will continue the case unless the parties both indicate readiness to participate in a hearing on the merits. 7. Any party has the right to request a rehearing on any final decision dismissing a case (see MPP 22-065, Welf. & Inst. Code, 10960), or file a petition for an administrative writ of mandate in Superior Court with or without requesting a rehearing. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, 10962; Code Civ. Proc. 1094.5 or 1085.) There is no right to a rehearing on a case that has been administratively dismissed without a decision prior to a hearing (MPP 22-065.62) B. Bifurcations Before the Hearing ALJ (22-049.552, .553) Even if the PALJ had denied bifurcation, bifurcation can occur at hearing. This can happen if the parties, either prior to or at the hearing, have agreed to have only jurisdiction heard on the case or an issue. In addition, the ALJ may decide on their own that the hearing should be bifurcated. In either of these case, only jurisdictional issues will be heard, and not the merits of the case or issue under review. The agency should have already drafted and made available a full SOP on both jurisdictional concerns and the merits of the case at least two business days prior to the initial hearing. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 15 At this jurisdictional hearing, or if the record is kept open pursuant to MPP section 22-085.221, within ten days after the close of the bifurcated hearing record, the ALJ will either provide a written decision dismissing the case for no jurisdiction or issue a written determination regarding the finding on jurisdiction. (MPP 22-049.532.) If the judge finds jurisdiction, the judge will request a continued hearing through ACMS; ACMS will generate the notice of hearing. 1. Lack of Standing or Authorized Representation a. Review of the RFH and NOA should include: Does the individual filing the RFH or appeal match the name12 on the NOA? Do the individual’s comments on the RFH appear to address an issue that potentially establishes the individual may not be a claimant? (For example, does the individual appear to be an IHSS provider instead of a recipient, and parent\/child provider issues are not raised. Does the RFH state the problem is a driver’s license or General Assistance?) b. Review of an AR Authorization form (e.g., DPA 19, MC 382 or 383, or other written appointment) should include: Is the person\/organization filing a hearing the individual\/organization purporting to be the authorized representative for the case’s subject claimant, and has this claimant signed this form? c. Additional Documents may include document(s) supporting the representative to be an attorney, relative status of the representative, a statement of facts, probate court, conservator, or guardianship orders for incompetent or comatose claimants, trusts for establishing trustee authority, etc. 2. Identical Issue Previously Heard on the Merits a. Review of the new RFH and Prior Decision should establish whether the prior decision was issued on the merits of the identical issue now reflected in the new RFH identical as to program issue, the time frames addressed in the prior decision, the identical parties, and that the decision was issued for this claimant. A review of the prior RFH and the prior decision may indicate that an issue for hearing was not addressed in the prior decision. The PALJ may wish to defer the decision to bifurcate, allowing the hearing ALJ to decide whether to bifurcate, if the prior decision was not made available with the request to bifurcate. 3. Compliance Issue a. Review of the RFH and Prior Decision should establish whether the RFH or appeal raises the exact issue that was the subject of a prior decision’s final order, and which would be subject to a dismissal per 22-001(c)(3) and 22-054.37; or whether the prior decision’s order remanded the case to the county and mandated the agency to make a further 12 Again caution in CalFresh cases NOA is addressed to head of household. CDSS STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROTOCOL ON BIFURCATIONS HEARINGS LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Bifurcation Protocol, 5\/26\/20 Page 16 determination, e.g., a reassessment in an IHSS case, or recomputation of an overpayment or overissuance, which would not be subject to dismissal. (See 22-001(c)(4).) 4. Lack of Substance Matter Jurisdiction a. Review of the RFH should establish whether the issue raised by the filer is not a subject that may be heard by SHD in determining whether to grant a bifurcated hearing. 5. Full Agency Resolution of Claim Prior to Hearing a. Review of RFH and agency documents sufficiently establishes the claim is, in fact, resolved by the agency’s final action. 6. Exhaustion in Medi-Cal Managed Care Claims A bifurcation request by the plan shall fully document the reasons that the claimant has not exhausted the in-plan appeal and has no basis for deemed exhaustion, with evidence that the plan has met all of its timeliness and notice requirements with respect to the adverse benefit determination and the appeal. The request for bifurcation must include, at a minimum: a) Copy of appeal to the plan, if any; b) Copy of the adverse benefit determination c) Your Rights or other appeal rights documents and any attachments to the notice with evidence that these documents went to claimant d) Any evidence that showing timeliness and notice requirements met e) Any other documentation necessary for the ALJ to adequately review and decide the request for dismissal. ”

” California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 1 – Introduction The rehearing review process is an integral component of the work and mission of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the State Hearings Division (SHD) and an expression of their commitment to quality control and fairness. Whenever a claimant or a county requests a rehearing, they are taking the first step to appeal the state hearing decision they have received, as they are alleging that their hearing was unfair or inadequate, the written decision rendered in their case was legally and\/or factually incorrect, or both. The rehearing process is designed to operate as an internal appeal mechanism that provides the parties to a state hearing with a relatively simple and efficient way of addressing such concerns by reviewing the decisions written by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). Rehearings, when merited, are required by Welfare and Institutions Code 1 , Section 10960. CDSS’s Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Division 22 regulations, specifically, section 22-065, track the statute and set forth additional procedural rules and requirements that apply specifically to rehearings. As the regulations clarify, the ultimate decision as to whether a rehearing is granted rests with the Director, acting through the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) as his\/her designee. ALJ Specialists assigned to the rehearing unit conduct reviews of rehearing requests on behalf of the Department, implementing the Department’s legal interpretations and policies. SHD’s proceedings also have a constitutional dimension, rooted in the need to afford the parties with fundamental due process. (Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254.) This document provides rehearing reviewers and other ALJs, as well as state-hearing parties and stakeholders, with an overview of the law governing the rehearing review process. It provides clarification of the legal concepts rehearing reviewers should consider when evaluating the merits of rehearing requests, and it offers a step-by-step guide to the process. Although this document contains citations to statutes, regulations and court cases, it is designed to be accessible to a general audience. The Legal Framework: Deadlines and Criteria The general time frames for requesting and acting on rehearing requests are defined by Section 10960, subdivision (a): Within 30 days after receiving 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, 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 supporting or objecting to the request. The director shall grant or deny the request no later than the 35th 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 2 – working day after the request is made to ensure the prompt and efficient administration of the hearing process. 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. 2 The grounds for granting a rehearing are set forth in Section 10960, subdivision (b): (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 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 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bases for denying a rehearing request were developed by the SHD to provide meaningful notice to those whose requests for rehearing are denied. They include: \uf0b7 No Good Cause for Failure to Submit Evidence \uf0b7 Untimely Filing Without Good Cause or Equitable Reason \uf0b7 No Rehearing Available for Compliance Issues \uf0b7 No New Unavailable Evidence \uf0b7 No Abuse of Discretion on Fact Finding \uf0b7 The Findings Are Supported by Substantial Evidence \uf0b7 No Mistake of Law or Policy \uf0b7 No Prejudicial ALJ Error in Conduct \uf0b7 No Failure to Consider Evidence 2 All County Information Notice (ACIN) I-66-08 (issued November 19, 2008) informed that, effective January 1, 2008, the time frame for granting or denying rehearing requests has been extended from 15 working days to 35 working days. In addition, the ACIN informed that the reference to a rehearing request being deemed denied if not acted upon by the Director of the Department had been deleted. California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 3 – \uf0b7 No Right to a Rehearing in an Administrative Disqualification Hearing\/Intentional Program Violation (ADH\/IPV) Decision in CalFresh (Title 7 Code Fed. Regs., 273.16, subd. (e)(8)(ii)) Mandamus Whether or not SHD decides to grant a rehearing, state hearing decisions are part of a larger legal system and are thus also subject to additional judicial appeals. As the cover page of each state hearing decision instructs under Appeal Rights, direct Superior Court review of hearing decisions is available via administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.5. Although Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to the Superior Court, which has far broader legal authority to review and correct administrative hearing decisions than the SHD’s Rehearing Unit, subsections (b), (c), (e) and (f) of that statute are cited below to call attention to the standards the Superior Court utilizes in mandamus proceedings to determine whether to uphold or reverse the orders adopted in state hearing decisions: (b)The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (c)Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. (e)Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case. (f)The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ. Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside or may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court’s opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent. (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5, subds. (b), (c), (e) and (f); emphasis added) California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 4 – A Six-Step Guide to Rehearing Review The rehearing review process begins when a request for rehearing is received in Sacramento by SHD’s Rehearing Unit. 3 A non-ALJ Rehearing Unit analyst reviews the request, notifies the parties in writing that the request has been received, enters the request into the rehearing database, and adds the request and any rebuttal received to the file previously assembled for the case. To ensure that the claimant receives the rehearing determination, the notice indicates that the claimant must inform the Rehearing Unit if his\/her contact information changes before he\/she receives the determination. The file is then sent to an ALJ Specialist for review. MPP section 22-065.2 explains the initiation of the rehearing review process. It provides the following: 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 above4 MPP sections 22-065.8 and .9 provides: .8 A rehearing request shall be permitted to be withdrawn any time 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. Step One: Is there Substantive Jurisdiction to Review the Issue? As a substantive matter, some types of state hearing decisions are not subject to rehearings. Thus, the rehearing reviewers must first determine whether the hearing decision at issue falls outside the scope of rehearing review. MPP section 22-065.6 provides: .6 The following shall not be subject to a rehearing: 3 An on-line rehearing request form that will be available on the CDSS website is currently under development. 4 The postmark on the envelope containing the rehearing request shall be the filing date. (MPP 22-065.14) California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 5 – .61 A rehearing decision, except on an issue that was decided for the first time on the merits in the rehearing decision. 5 .62 A hearing request that has been dismissed pursuant to Section 22-054.4. 6 .63 A compliance issue as defined in Section 22-001(c) (3). 7 Regarding Intentional Program Violations (IPVs), MPP section 22-230 provides: .15 An administrative disqualification decision is not subject to the provisions of Section 22-065. .151 There is no right to a rehearing regarding a finding of intentional Program violation. .152 A decision finding intentional Program violation shall inform the respondent concerning the right to judicial review. Notwithstanding the above, rehearings are available in CalWORKs IPV cases 8 . MPP section 22- 340.6 pertaining to CalWORKs IPVs provides: .6 The CWD may not disqualify a respondent unless the decision of the ALJ finds that the respondent has committed an IPV or the respondent fails to request a state level de novo hearing within 25 days of the notice of an adverse local level hearing decision that proposes to disqualify the respondent has been sent to the respondent. Step Two: Is the Rehearing Request Timely? Like the substantive considerations discussed in step one, the rehearing review process lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely rehearing requests. However, good cause for filing a late rehearing request can be considered under the statutory criteria discussed below. Section 10960 gives a party 30 days after the receipt of a state hearing decision to file a written request for rehearing. MPP section 22-065 provides: .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. 5 If a party is dissatisfied with a decision that was rendered in a rehearing of this kind of case, the only remedy is to file a writ of mandamus. 6 The types of cases that the CALJ, or his\/her designee, has the authority to dismiss without a hearing and written decision. They are the following: 1.The issue is not within the jurisdiction of a state hearing; 2. The claimant filed an untimely hearing request; and 3. The request for hearing raises a compliance issue. 7 A rehearing request that raises a compliance issue related to the state hearing decision. 8 Pursuant to 20-351, subd. (i)(1), a CalWORKs IPV is a determination that an individual has intentionally made a false or misleading statement or misrepresented, concealed or withheld facts; or committed any act intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal, or withhold facts or propound a falsity; and committed these acts to establish or maintain CalWORKs eligibility, or to increase or prevent a reduction in the amount of the CalWORKs grant. California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 6 – .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. .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. Effective January 1, 2008, Section 10960 was amended to say that a person may be entitled to a rehearing even if s\/he requests one beyond the 30 day time period, if his\/her reason for filing late is either because s\/he did not receive the decision, or s\/he received it but has good cause for filing late. Specifically, 10960(f)(2) provides: (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 prejudice 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. The department shall not grant a request for a rehearing for good cause if the request is filed more than 180 days after the order or action complained of. Also, identical to 10951(b)(3), 10960(f)(3) provides: California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 7 – (3) This section shall not preclude the application of the principles of equity jurisdiction as otherwise provided by law. Step Three: Substantive Errors: Errors of Law Versus Errors of Fact Assuming that the rehearing request is timely and should be evaluated on the merits, rehearing reviewers must next decide whether the decision under review contains a substantive error related to the request. The first place to look, once again, in making this determination is the rehearing request itself. The decision cover page reminds all parties, as follows: In your rehearing request, state the date you received this decision and why a rehearing should be granted. If you want to present additional evidence, describe the additional evidence and explain why it was not introduced before and how it would change the decision. Once the alleged error or errors described in a rehearing request are identified, the rehearing reviewer will decide whether what is being alleged are errors of law, errors of fact-finding, or both. In some cases, such as when a party argues that the decision is inconsistent with the law and cites Section 10960, subdivision (b)(1), it will be clear that the asserted error is one of law, involving an allegation that the ALJ cited the wrong law or regulation to decide a claim or misunderstood the meaning and application of law or regulation. In other cases, such as when a party contends the decision is not supported by the evidence and cites Section 10960, subdivision (b)(2), it will be clear that the asserted error concerns the ALJ’s fact finding. In still other cases, the rehearing request will raise mixed questions of law and fact. Whatever error is specifically alleged in a rehearing request, the reviewer will keep in mind the distinction between errors of law and errors in fact finding because different legal tests are used to review each kind of mistake. Errors of Law: Generally, alleged errors of law and\/or policy are reviewed under what is called a de novo standard. Under this standard, the rehearing reviewer conducts a fresh analysis from the perspective of the Director of the applicable law and reaches a fresh conclusion as to whether the ALJ who presided over the hearing applied the law incorrectly. Alleged mistakes of fact finding, on the other hand, are subject to more deferential scrutiny on review. 9 9 By contrast, Superior Courts are authorized and required by 1094.5 of the Code Civ. Proc. to conduct independent reviews of factual findings contained in state hearing decisions, subject to a strong presumption that the findings are correct. (Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4 th 805. 818). California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 8 – The types of factual findings made by ALJs in state hearing decisions are as widely varied as the types of state hearings conducted by SHD. They encompass everything from mental impairment determinations, to assessments of the credibility of witnesses, to benefit and overpayment computations. Errors of Fact: The following standards can be used in a rehearing review: \uf0b7 [A] finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed; (Anderson v. City of Bessemer City (1985) 470 U.S. 564, 573; See also, San Mateo City School Dist. v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850.) \uf0b7 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB (1951) 340 U.S. 474, 477; Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159, 164.) \uf0b7 Abuse of discretion may be found (as to factual findings and sometimes as to legal holdings as well) when: (1) the tribunal’s decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) the decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the tribunal’s findings are clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence upon which the tribunal rationally could have based its decision. (Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, (1971) 401 U.S. 402, 416; see also, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. DHS (1995) 38 Cal.App.4 th 1574, defining abuse of discretion as occurring when the decision’s factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence.) An abuse of discretion may also occur when the trier fails to exercise discretion. (See, e.g., Dickson, Carlson &Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4 th 436, 449; In re Jesua V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588). For a good general overview of the abuse of discretion test, see the en banc opinion in United States v Hinkson, (9 th Cir. 2009) 585 F. 3d 1247, 1251 Addressing Issues Beyond the Rehearing Request: 10960(b)(5) states: (5) The adopted decision does not address all of the claims or issues supported by the record or evidence. Therefore, if in the course of reviewing the case record, the rehearing reviewer determines that the decision doesn’t address an issue raised by either party that has a bearing on the outcome of the case, the reviewer may, on his\/her own, recommend a rehearing to consider the issue. Listening to the Recording: California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 9 – Rehearing reviewers have discretion to decide whether it is necessary to listen to the recording of the hearing in order to render a rehearing recommendation. Listening to the recording would be especially appropriate when a rehearing request raises serious allegations of factual error, such as a contention that key testimony was provided but not considered by the ALJ or summarized in the decision’s factual findings, and that such testimony would change the outcome of the case. If, in the process of reviewing a recording, the rehearing reviewer discovers the recording is either missing or not sufficiently complete or is inaudible, SHD’s policy is to grant an automatic rehearing subject to exceptions when the rehearing determination would not be affected by the content of the recording. Examples of when a rehearing request may be denied in the absence of a fully preserved recording are: \uf0b7 Where a rehearing request only alleges legal errors, and the decision is legally correct on its face. \uf0b7 Where the rehearing request is filed late without either good cause or reasons that would excuse the filing delay on the basis of equity. Step Four: Harmless Error Analysis When errors in decisions are identified, rehearing reviewers must undertake a fourth step, and decide whether the errors are sufficiently important to warrant a rehearing. Not all errors require reversal of a judgment or decision. Reversal is mandated only for those errors deemed prejudicial to the outcome of a case. (See, e.g., with reference to California writs of mandate, Steele v. L.A. County Civil Service Com. (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 126; Russ v. Unemployment Ins. Bd (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3 rd 834; Constancio v. State Personnel Bd. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3 rd 3rd 980.) In Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, the Supreme Court announced that even as to constitutional errors, most are subject to what is called harmless error analysis. The sole exception to this rule applies to those errors which are deemed \”structural\” in nature and affect the basic framework of a trial itself rather than a mistake that simply occurs during a trial. These kinds of errors are considered reversible per se. Under Article VI, section 13 of the California Constitution, a judgment may not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that an error resulted \”in a miscarriage of justice.\” As interpreted by the California Supreme Court, this provision means that a judgment may not be reversed without a showing \”that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.\” Otherwise, the error is deemed harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) California Civil Code, Section 475, using similar language, provides for reversal or modification of a judgment only when the record as a whole demonstrates prejudicial error that caused California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 10 – substantial injury to the appealing party and without which a different result would have been probable. The burden of establishing prejudice under the harmless error rule in civil cases is on the party appealing the judgment. (Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993) 507 US 619; Fukuda v. City of Angels (1999) 20 Cal.4 th 805, 817.) For rehearing purposes, this means that the burden of showing that a rehearing is warranted lies with the requesting party; an error is prejudicial, and therefore not harmless, if it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would occur absent the error. (Cassin v. Allstate Ins. (2002) 33 Cal.4 th 780, 806.) A reasonable chance of a different decision is sufficient to make the error prejudicial. (Id.) To sum up, before recommending that a rehearing be granted, an ALJ reviewer must conclude that (a) the decision contains an error, (b) the error is serious or substantial, and (c) in the absence of the error, it is reasonably probable the outcome of the hearing would have been different. Rehearing Requests Alleging Newly Discovered Evidence Under Section 10960, subdivision (b)(7) As noted above, Section 10960, subdivision (b), sets forth the grounds for granting rehearings. While the first six sub-sections of this statute concerns errors contained in the established evidentiary record (oral and documentary) of a hearing, subsection (7) presents a special situation that asks the rehearing reviewer to consider the relevance and importance of evidence that is not contained in the record. To apply the language of the subsection in such cases, SHD requires the party requesting the rehearing and proffering new evidence to (a) explain why the evidence was not in the party’s custody or available to the party at the time of the hearing, (b) attach a copy of the proffered new evidence and (c) explain how the new evidence, had it been introduced, reasonably could have changed the result of the decision. Even if requirements (a) and (b) are met, if a different outcome does not appear reasonably probable after consideration of the new evidence, the hearing request will be denied. Program Contacts As discussed above, the rehearing reviewer is required to implement the Department’s legal interpretations and policies. Therefore, as part of the deliberative process, the reviewer may have to consult with Program on an as needed basis when the Department’s position is not already clear. SHD Contacts To protect the integrity and impartiality of the review process, the rehearing reviewer should have no contact about a case with the ALJ who wrote the initial decision, either during the California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 11 – review or after a rehearing determination has been made. The Presiding Judge, however, may contact the rehearing reviewer if s\/he has a question about the review recommendation. Step Five: Putting the Analysis in Writing After a rehearing reviewer decides whether to recommend a rehearing, as part of the deliberative process, the reviewer’s analysis and recommendation is put in writing and entered into the rehearing database. Based on the analysis, the Chief Administrative Law Judge or his\/her designee determines whether to grant or deny the requested rehearing. If the rehearing recommendation is to grant the rehearing, the analysis should clearly and completely identify all issues that must be addressed at the rehearing, including any specific evidence that the rehearing reviewer determined must be obtained in the rehearing in order to render a legally and factually correct decision. Recommending a Rehearing on the Record or In Person\/By Telephone Rehearings on the record are conducted on the basis of the record compiled in the state hearing under review. Generally, they are recommended only in cases where there are no disputes of material fact. In some rare cases, a rehearing on the record may also be recommended to correct a mistake in the decision, even if the rehearing reviewer concludes that the error is harmless. Generally, a rehearing, either in person or on the record, will not be assigned to the same judge who conducted the original hearing. The CALJ or his\/her designee has the discretion to assign a rehearing to an ALJ in a regional office different from the office in which the original case was heard if the CALJ or his\/her designee believes that it would protect the integrity and due process of the rehearing procedure to do so. Depending on the case, the rehearing reviewer may also make a recommendation for this to be done. Expedited Rehearing Review and Expedited Rehearing Requests Requests for expedited rehearing reviews and expedited rehearings are to be considered as soon as administratively possible. If it is determined that an expedited review should be granted, a letter is sent to the parties notifying them of this and allowing the non-requesting party five days to respond. It will then be determined if an expedited rehearing should be granted. Limited Issues California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 12 – Sometimes a rehearing request will contain multiple allegations of error, but only a limited number will have merit. In such cases, rehearing grants will be issued, limited to specific issues. Step Six- Notifying Parties of the Rehearing Determination The final step in the review process involves drafting the letter to the parties, notifying them of the disposition of the rehearing request. As required by Section 10960, subdivision (c): The notice granting or denying the rehearing request shall explain the reasons and legal basis for granting or denying the request for rehearing. The pertinent sections of MPP sections 22-065.4 through 22-065.5 provide the following: .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. .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. MPP section 22-065.7 provides: 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. The SHD rehearing database contains a variety of sample form letters that are mailed to the parties after being tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. Although the letters are designed to be brief, it is SHD’s policy to provide readable and informative explanations of the action taken on all rehearing requests. Toward that end, all rehearing letters are required to explain the reasons why the rehearing request has been granted or denied, whether a rehearing is being ordered on the record or in person\/by telephone, and whether only limited issues will be the subject of the rehearing. If a rehearing determination is based on departmental policy, the letter shall reflect that policy. Rehearing Decision Deadlines California Department of Social Services, State Hearings Division REHEARING REVIEW PROTOCOLS – Page 13 – In order for a rehearing decision to be timely, it must be adopted within 60 or 90 days, depending on the Program involved, from the date that the grant letter is mailed to the parties and to the claimant’s authorized representative. ”

” May 20, 2013 ALL COUNTY LETTER No. 13-40 TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS ALL COUNTY HEARING REPRESENTATIVES ALL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES SUBJECT: STATE HEARINGS DIVISION PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING EXPEDITED STATE HEARING REQUESTS REFERENCE: Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) sections 10950 through 10967; CDSS Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) sections 22-001 through 22-085. This All County Letter (ACL) is to provide information regarding the procedures for processing expedited state hearings requests. To improve access and communication about the availability of expedited state hearings, this letter is located on the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), State Hearings Division (SHD) website, under the Expedited Hearings tab. ELIGIBILITY FOR EXPEDITED STATE HEARINGS: Only issues that require an expedited decision will be set for an expedited hearing. The issues that will be subject to this process are cases involving: 1. Expedited CalFresh (formerly Food Stamps); 2. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) Immediate Need, including a failure to process applications within 15 days after payment and denial\/failure to issue Expedited Grant funds; 3. CalWORKs Homeless Assistance; REASON FOR THIS TRANSMITTAL [ ] State Law Change [ ] Federal Law or Regulation Change [ ] Court Order [ ] Clarification Requested by One or More Counties [x ] Initiated by CDSS All County Letter 13-40 Page 2 4. Denial of supportive services for welfare-to-work which would result in the loss of employment or inability to participate or make satisfactory progress in a Self- Initiated Program (SIP) or approved educational\/training activity; and 5. Any other issue of urgency that the CDSS\/SHD deems necessary. PROCESSING THE EXPEDITED HEARING REQUEST: Requests for these hearings shall be made to the regional office Presiding Judge or to the SHD at 1-800-743-8525 or fax (916) 651-2789, or for hearings for speech impaired (TDD) 1-800-952-8349. 1. The SHD will field requests for expedited state hearings from claimants\/authorized representatives (ARs) and counties. The Presiding Judge (PJ) of the county’s regional office will determine if an expedited state hearing is necessary. The PJ may contact the county appeals representative and the claimant to get, as necessary, further information about the necessity for an expedited state hearing, and may be done through a three-way call. Unless made through a three way call, if such a contact is made, the contact and the information provided must be revealed to the other party no later than the beginning of the hearing. The contact and the information provided may be revealed in writing or via telephone or other electronic means. 2. If the request for an expedited state hearing is granted, the PJ shall ensure the case is calendared on an expedited basis, giving both claimants\/ARs and the county at least ten (10) calendar days advance notice of the time, date and the type of hearing that will be convened and conducted by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Notices to county and claimant\/AR will be transmitted in writing or by other electronic means specifying the expedited state hearing has been set. 3. If the request for an expedited state hearing is denied, the PJ or his or her designee shall notify the claimant\/AR and the county of the determination, and the case will be set for a regular state hearing. Notices to county and claimant\/AR will be transmitted in writing or by other electronic means specifying the expedited state hearing has been denied. CONDUCTING THE EXPEDITED HEARING: 1. Generally, the most expeditious way the SHD can conduct an expedited state hearing within its resource limits is by telephone. However, if the expedited state hearing can be incorporated into an existing in-person calendar, the SHD will set the case accordingly. If the expedited hearing cannot be set within the existing in-person calendar, the claimant shall be informed via telephone that the matter will be set by telephone. If the claimant wants the hearing conducted in-person, the matter will set for the next regular in-person calendar offered by the county. All County Letter 13-40 Page 3 2. The county is required to have its Statement of Position (SOP) available for the claimant to pick up at its county offices two working days before the scheduled hearing, including for expedited hearings. If the county does not have it ready, the claimant can request and receive a postponement or can opt to proceed without the SOP. The SHD will reset the hearing immediately if the claimant opts for a postponement, in order to attempt to resolve the urgent issue as soon as possible. Counties are reminded that offering to reconsider a matter, when no new information is needed is not appropriate, as the claimant has the right to receive a decision on the matter. 3. The ALJ will issue a decision in the case within five (5) business days of record closure. 4. The SHD has found that a high percentage of cases involving emergency circumstances are subject to settlement. Therefore, parties are encouraged to engage in settlement negotiations as soon as possible, so that the county can take immediate action if settlement is reached, thereby obviating the need for the administrative hearing. If the matter has been resolved, the county must contact the SHD and issue a Notice of Action to the claimant\/AR specifying the action taken. If the claimant disagrees with the action, the claimant can file a new request for hearing based on the new Notice of Action. It is SHD’s intention that the expedited state hearings process will continue to provide more effective due process in those cases where emergency relief is at issue. If you have questions or concerns regarding the expedited state hearing process, contact your nearest Presiding Judge as follows: Los Angeles Regional Office (213) 833-2200 San Diego Regional Office (760) 510-4999 Northern Valley\/Coastal Regional Office (916) 651-0927 Disability Hearings Bureau (916) 653-1878 Sincerely, Original Document Signed By: MANUEL A. ROMERO Deputy Director State Hearings Division ”

” SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 1 Mar 6, 2007 1000-1 Unless expressly made irrevocable by the instrument creating the trust, every trust shall be revocable by the trustor by a writing filed with the trustee, as long as the trust was created by a California domiciliary, was executed in this state, or is governed by California law. (Probate Code 15400) 1000-2 The existence and terms of an oral trust of personal property may be established only by clear and convincing evidence. The oral declaration of the settlor, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence of the creation of a trust of personal property. (Probate Code 15207) 1000-3 Custodial property is created and a transfer is made when money is paid or delivered or a security held in a nominee’s name is transferred to a broker or financial institution for credit to an account in the name of the transferor, an adult other than the transferor, or a trust company, followed in substance by the words \”as custodian for ____________ (Name of Minor) under the California Uniform Transfers to Minor Act.\” Such a transfer is irrevocable and the custodial property is indefeasibly vested in the minor but the custodian has all the rights, power, duties, and authority provided in the Probate Code. (Probate Code 3909(a)(2), 3911(b)) 1000-3A A custodian under the California Uniform Transfers to Minor Act may deliver or pay to the minor or expend for the minor’s benefit as much of the custodial property as the custodian considers advisable for the use and benefit of the minor. No court order is required to effect such payments. The payments may be made without regard to (1) the duty or ability of the custodian personally, or of any other person, to support the minor or (2) any other income or property of the minor which may be available for that purpose. (Probate Code 3914(a)) 1000-4 A resulting trust arises from a transfer of property under circumstances showing that the transferee was not intended to take the beneficial interest. It has been termed an \”intention- enforcing\” trust. The resulting trust carries out the inferred intent of the parties, the constructive trust defeats or prevents the wrongful act of one of them. A resulting trust differs from an express trust chiefly in that (1) it arises by operation of law, without an expressed intent, and (2) the resulting trustee ordinarily has no duty other than to transfer the property to the person entitled. The statute of frauds is not a bar to the use of parol evidence to establish a resulting trust. Where the grantee is the wife, child or other natural object of the affections of the claimant, a contrary presumption arises of a gift or advancement. This presumption is rebuttable. (Witkin, Summary of California Law, Eighth Edition, Volume 7, at p. 5481, 5487) 1000-5 In the case of a Totten trust, the beneficiary has no rights to the sums on deposit during the lifetime of any party unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. If there is an irrevocable trust, the account belongs to the beneficiary. (Probate Code 5301(c)) In Estate of Wilson (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 67, 227 Cal.Rptr. 794, the following is set forth: \”The Totten trust basically allows a decedent to make a testamentary disposition of cash assets without going through the formalities of drawing up a will. Under a rule established in the New York case of Matter of Totten, [179 N.Y. 112, 71 N.E. 748], if a depositor merely opens a bank account in his own name as trustee for another person, intending to reserve the power to withdraw funds during his lifetime, a tentative trust is created, revocable during the trustor’s lifetime or by his SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 2 Mar 6, 2007 will, and at his death presumptively an absolute trust. Partial revocation takes place whenever the depositor withdraws money from the account, and the beneficiary is entitled only to the balance on deposit at death. But if the beneficiary dies first, the tentative trust is terminated. (7 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (8th ed. 1974) Trusts, S 17, p. 5379, emphasis in original.) California has recognized the legitimacy of Totten trusts for a long time (Kosloskye v. Cis (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 174, P.2d 565; Estate of Collins (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 928, 932, 149 Cal.Rptr. 65, stating the Totten trust doctrine \”is accepted law in this state\”), and recently the Legislature authorized this form of testamentary disposition by enacting the Multiple-Party Accounts Law. (Prob. Code, S 5100 et seq.)\” See Estate of Wilson, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 796. 1000-6 One who wrongfully detains a thing is an involuntary trustee thereof, for the benefit of the owner. (Civil Code 2223) One who gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act, unless he or she has some other and better right thereto, is an involuntary trustee of the thing gained, for the benefit of the person who would otherwise have had it. (Civil Code 2224) 1001-1 The earnings and accumulations of a spouse and the minor children living with, or in the custody of, the spouse, while living separate and apart from the other spouse, are the separate property of the spouse. (Family Code 771) 1001-2 In the division of the community estate under this division, unless a party has made a written waiver of the right to reimbursement or signed a writing that has the effect of a waiver, the party shall be reimbursed for the party’s contributions to the acquisition of the property to the extent the party traces the contributions to a separate property source. The amount reimbursed shall be without interest or adjustment for change in monetary values and shall not exceed the net value of the property at the time of the division. As used in this section, \”contributions to the acquisition of the property\” include downpayments, payments for improvements, and payments that reduce the principal of a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of the property but do not include payments of interest on the loan or payments made for maintenance, insurance, or taxation of the property. (Family Code 2640) 1001-3 All property of a married person, owned by the person before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise or descent, with the rents, issues, and profits of the property described in this section, is separate property. (Family Code 770) 1001-4 \”An estate in real property, other than an estate at will or for a term not exceeding one year, can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.\” (Civil Code 1091) Witkin, Summary of California Law, Ninth Edition, Volume 4, discusses real property. At page 354, 140 states that the requisites of a deed are: 1. A grantor 2. A grantee 3. A writing and subscription 4. Delivery 5. Acceptance. A recordation is not necessary; its effect is to give constructive notice and to determine priorities. Witkin, at p. 379, 170 adds: \”A deed takes effect only when delivered…. Delivery depends upon the intention that title shall pass irrevocably…. It is a question of fact and evidence of the circumstances and of the acts and declarations of the SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 3 Mar 6, 2007 grantor may be offered on the issue.\” Witkin continues. \”If the grant is beneficial and the grantee has knowledge of it, acceptance will be presumed.\” (Witkin, p. 400, 194) 1001-4A An estate in real property (other than an estate at will, or for a term not exceeding one year) can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, signed by the grantor or the grantor’s duly authorized agent. (Civil Code 1091 and 1624(a)(3) and (4)) 1001-5 A transfer of property may be made without writing, unless there is a statute which requires a writing. (Civil Code (Civ. C.) 1052) A transfer in writing is called a grant, or conveyance or bill of sale. (Civ. C. 1053) A grant takes effect only when it is delivered to the grantee. (Civ. C. 1054) A grant duly executed is presumed to have been delivered as of the date on the grant. (Civ. C. 1055) 1001-7 Under California Law, the ownership of property is the right of one or more persons to possess and use that property to the exclusion of others. (Civil Code (Civ. C.) 654) The person’s ownership of property is absolute when that person has absolute dominion over the property, and may use it or dispose of it as he or she wishes. (Civ. C. 679) 1001-8 Under California law, a gift is a voluntary transfer of personal property, for which the donor receives no \”consideration\”. (Civil Code (Civ. C.) 1146) \”Consideration\” is a benefit given directly, or agreed to be given, to one person by another when there is no legal obligation to do so. Consideration may also exist when one person agrees not to pursue an action, or claim, or a right, against another person against whom that course of action could otherwise be pursued. (Civ. C. 1605) 1100-1 A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed received in the normal course of the mail. (Evidence Code 641) 1100-2 If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust. (Evidence Code 412) 1100-3 The genuineness of handwriting, or lack thereof, may be proved by a comparison made by the trier of fact with handwriting (a) which the court finds was admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or (b) otherwise proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the court. (Evidence Code 1417) 1100-4 An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or, group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. (Evidence Code 600(b)) An SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 4 Mar 6, 2007 inference does not follow from the nonexistence of a fact. It cannot be based on speculation, supposition, conjecture or guesswork. (See, e.g., Traxler v. Thompson (1970), 4 Cal. App. 3d 278, 84 Cal.Rptr. 211) 1100-5A In 1999, the \”Best Evidence\” rule was replaced by the \”Secondary Evidence of Writings\” Rule. Portions of that rule are set forth below: The content of a writing may be proved by an otherwise admissible original. (Evidence Code (Ev. C.) 1520) The content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence. The court shall exclude secondary evidence of the content of writing if the court determines either of the following: (1) A genuine dispute exists concerning material terms of the writing and justice requires the exclusion. (2) Admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair. (Ev. C. 1521(a)) Nothing in this section makes admissible oral testimony to prove the content of a writing if the testimony is inadmissible under 1523 (oral testimony of the content of a writing). (Ev. C. 1521(b)) Nothing in this section excuses compliance with 1401 (authentication). (Ev. C. 1521(c)) This section shall be known as the \”Secondary Evidence Rule.\” (Ev. C. 1524(d)) Except as otherwise provided by statute, oral testimony is not admissible to prove the content of a writing. (Ev. C. 1523(a)) A purported copy of a writing in the custody of a public entity, or of an entry in such a writing, is prima facie evidence of the existence and content of such writing or entry if: (1) The copy purports to be published by the authority of the nation or state, or public entity in which the writing is kept. (2) The office in which the writing is kept is within the United States or within the Panama Canal Zone, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Ryukyu Islands, and the copy is attested or certified as a correct copy of the writing or entry by a public employee, or a deputy of a public employee, having the legal custody of the writing. (Ev. C. 1530(a); 1530(a)(3) deals with writings kept outside the United States) A nonerasable optical image reproduction provided that additions, deletions, or changes to the original document are not permitted by the technology, a photostatic, microfilm, microcard, miniature photographic, or other photographic copy or reproduction, or an enlargement thereof, of a writing is as admissible as the writing itself if the copy or reproduction was made and preserved as a part of the records of a business (as defined by Ev. C. 1270) in the regular course of that business. (Ev. C. 1550) SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 5 Mar 6, 2007 (The Secondary Evidence Rule is discussed in more detail in Witkin, California Evidence, 4th Edition, 2000, Vol. 2, 27 et seq.) 1100-6 Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes the fact. (Evidence Code (Ev. C.) 410) Except where additional evidence is required by statute, the direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact. (Ev. C. 411) 1100-7 The Evidence Code (Evid. Code) deals with general rules as to the determination of credibility of witnesses. The rule provides as follows: \”Except as otherwise provided by statute, the court or jury may consider in determining the credibility of a witness any matter that has any tendency in reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of his testimony at the hearing, including but not limited to any of the following: \”(a) His demeanor while testifying and the manner in which he testifies. \”(b) The character of his testimony. \”(c) The extent of his capacity to perceive, to recollect, or to communicate any matter about which he testifies. \”(d) The extent of his opportunity to perceive any matter about which he testifies. \”(e) His character for honesty or veracity or their opposites. \”(f) The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive. \”(g) A statement previously made by him that is consistent with his testimony at the hearing. \”(h) A statement made by him that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing. \”(i) The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by him. \”(j) His attitude toward the action in which he testifies or toward the giving of testimony. \”(k) His admission of untruthfulness.\” (Evid. Code 780) 1100-8 In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party’s failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating to those facts. (Evidence Code 413) SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 6 Mar 6, 2007 1100-9 \”Hearsay evidence\” is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. (Evidence Code 1200(a)) 1100-10 Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an action to which he is a party in either his individual or representative capacity, regardless of whether the statement was made in his individual or representative capacity. (Evidence Code 1220) 1100-11 Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words of other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth. (Evidence Code 1221) 1100-12 Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him against another, or created such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. (Evidence Code 1230) 1100-13 Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove the act, condition, or event if: (a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; (c) The custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation; and (d) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness. (Evidence Code 1271) 1100-14 Evidence of the absence from the records of a business of a record of an asserted act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered to prove the nonoccurrence of the act or event, or the nonexistence of the condition, if: (a) It was the regular course of that business to make records of all such acts, conditions, or events at or near the time of the act, condition, or event and to preserve them; and SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 7 Mar 6, 2007 (b) The sources of information and method and time of preparation of the records of that business were such that the absence of a record of an act, condition, or event is a trustworthy indication that the act or event did not occur or the condition did not exist. (Evidence Code 1272) 1100-15 Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in any civil proceeding to prove the act, condition, or event if all of the following applies: (a) The writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee. (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event. (c) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness. (Evidence Code 1280) 1101-1 In administrative tribunals, the party asserting the affirmative of the issue generally has the burden of proof. (Cornell v. Reilly (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 178, 273 P.2d 572; and California Administrative Agency Practice, California Continuing Education of the Bar (1970) p.183) 1101-2 The burden of producing evidence is the obligation of a party to produce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. (Evidence Code (Evid. Code) 110) The burden of producing evidence as to a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of proof as to that fact. (Evid. Code 550) 1101-3 The burden of proof is the obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evidence Code 115) 1101-4 The county has the burden of going forward in the state hearing to support its determination. ( 22-073.36) 1102-1 A person entirely without understanding has no power to make a contract of any kind, but the person is liable for the reasonable value of things furnished to the person necessary for the support of the person or the person’s family. (Civil Code 38) 1102-2 A \”contract\” is an agreement to do or not do a certain thing. (Civil Code (Civ. C.) 1549) In order for a valid contract to exist, there must be: SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 8 Mar 6, 2007 (1) Parties who are capable of entering into a contract. (2) The consent of the parties. (3) A lawful object about which the parties can contract. (4) A sufficient consideration or cause for the contractual agreement. (Civ. C. 1550) 1103-1 In construing a statute, it will be presumed that every word, phrase and provision was intended to have a meaning and perform some useful office, and a construction implying that words were used in vain, or that they are surplusage, will be avoided. (See Woodmansee v. Lowery (1959) 167 Cal. App. 2d 645) 1103-2 In the construction of a statute, the judicial function is not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Where there are several provisions, the goal of the courts is to achieve harmony between conflicting laws and avoid an interpretation which would require that one statute be ignored. However, when this is not possible, effect should be given to the more recently enacted law, and a specific statute relating to a particular subject will govern over a general one. (Larson v. California State Personnel Bd. (1994) 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412) 1103-3 The United States Supreme Court has offered the following guidance in determining how to understand the meaning of a statute: In Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990) 494 U.S. 827, 835, the court held: \”The starting point for interpretation of a statute ‘is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.’\” The Court has stated that \”the statutory language controls its construction\” (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance (1981) 452 U.S. 155, 158, fn. 3) and \”[t]here is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the [L]egislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.\” (Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. (1982) 458 U.S. 564, 571.) In interpreting a statute, the Court has said: \”‘In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.’ [Citations.] Our objective in a case such as this is to ascertain the congressional intent and give effect to the legislative will.’\” (Philbrook v. Glodgett (1975) 421 U.S. 707, 713.) The Court has also stated, \”We do not, however, construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a whole.\” (United States v. Morton (1984) 467 U.S. 822, 828, fn. omitted.) It has emphasized the importance of avoiding: \”absurd results\” (United States v. Turkette (1981) 452 U.S. 576, 580); \”an odd result\” (Public Citizen v. Department of Justice (1989) 491 U.S. 440, 454); or \”unreasonable results\” whenever possible. (American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson (1982) 456 U.S. 63, 71.) Moreover, the Court has noted, \”Judicial perception that a particular result would be unreasonable may enter into the construction of ambiguous provisions, but cannot justify SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 9 Mar 6, 2007 disregard of what Congress has plainly and intentionally provided.\” (Commissioner v. Asphalt Products Co., Inc. (1987) 482 U.S. 117, 121.) In Griffin, supra, 458 U.S. at page 571, the court stated: \”Nevertheless, in rare cases the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters, and those intentions must be controlling…. [Citations.]\” When a statute is unambiguous, its language cannot \”be expanded or contracted by the statements of individual legislators or committees during the course of the [legislative] process. (West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (1991) 499 U.S. 83, 98-99).\” 1103-4 The California Court of Appeal reviewed case law involving the retroactive effect of changes in law in Rosasco v. Commission on Judicial Performance. The court stated: \”The general rule, both in California and in the United States, is that absent some clear indication to the contrary, any change in the law is presumed to have prospective application only. The principle that statutes operate only prospectively, while judicial decisions operate retrospectively, is familiar to every law student. [Citations.] This Court has often pointed out: ‘[T]he first rule of construction is that legislation must be considered as addressed to the future, not to the past . The rule has been expressed in varying degrees of strength but always of one import, that a retrospective operation will not be given to a statute which interferes with antecedent rights unless such be ‘the unequivocal and inflexible import of the terms, and the manifest intention of the legislature. [Citations.]’ (United States v. Security Industrial Bank (1982) 459 U.S. 70, 79- 80; see also Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207) \”This well-established principle of law was firmly re-enunciated by our Supreme Court in Evangelatos, supra 44 Cal.3d 1188. Like the instant case, Evangelatos concerned the retroactive application of a voter-approved proposition. The Supreme Court held that Proposition 51, which limited an individual joint tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic damage, could not be retroactively applied to a cause of action that accrued prior to the passage of the proposition. As the court stated: ‘California continues to adhere to the time-honored principle, codified by the Legislature in Civil Code section 3 and similar provisions, that in the absence of an express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature or the voters must have intended a retroactive application’ (Evangelatos, supra at pp. 1208- 1209.) On this basis, the court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that there is a presumption of prospectivity applicable to every new legislative enactment in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary .’ Id. at pp. 1193-1194, 1208, 1213- 1214; see also Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 243, Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 287; People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274; Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian (1989) 48 Cal.3d 805, 827.)\” (Rosasco, supra (2000), 82 Cal.App. 4th 315, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 111) 1103-4A In the case of Canfield v. Prod, an Aid to the Totally Disabled (ATD) recipient requested that the Department of Benefit Payments (now the Department of Social Services) reimburse her for Social Security payments she was required to make on behalf of her provider of attendant care. In discussing the applicability of the underpayment rules contained in Welfare & Institutions Code 11004(g), the Court of Appeals stated as follows: SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 10 Mar 6, 2007 \”It is well settled that a statute is not to be given retrospective effect unless the Legislature has expressly so declared and this rule is particularly applicable when the statute affects vested rights. (Balen v. Peralta Junior College Dist., 11 Cal.3d 821, 828, 114 Cal Rptr.589, 523 P.2d 629; DiGenova v. State Board of Education, 57 Cal.2d 167, 172, 18 Cal.Rptr. 369, 367 P.2d 865; McBarron v. Kimball, 210 Cal.App.2d 218, 220, 26 Cal.Rptr. 379; McKinney v. Ruderman, 203 Cal.App.2d 109, 117-118, 21 Cal.Rptr. 263.) In the instant case subdivision (g) of section 11004 clearly interferes with a vested right, and tin the absence of any language clearly showing retrospective operation must be construed to operate prospectively, i.e., subsequent to August 13, 1971. Accordingly, such rights may not be impaired by subsequent statutes. (Grogan v. San Francisco, 18 Cal. 590, 613; Montgomery v. Kasson, 16 Cal. 189, 194; and see Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal.2d 848, 851-853, 179 P.2d 799.) \”[The director’s] reliance [on Section 13502] is misplaced in view of the judicial decisions characterizing as a ‘debt’ the county’s obligation to pay an applicant aid as of the date the applicant is first entitled to receive aid and as characterizing as ‘vested’ an applicant’s right to receive benefits as of that date. Section 13502 cannot be interpreted so as to substantially destroy that right or defeat that obligation.\” (Canfield v. Prod (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 722 at 729-731, 137 Cal.Rptr. 27) 1103-5 Ordinarily courts give the words of a statute the meaning they have in everyday speech. (Savnik v. Hall (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 733, 740) The exception to this rule is that \”when a word in a statute has a well established legal meaning, it will be given that meaning in construing the statute.\” (Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 4, 19) 1103-6 ADDED 6\/04Provisions of law relating to a public assistance program shall be fairly and equitably construed to affect the stated objects and purposes of the program. (Welfare and Institutions Code 11000) 1110-1 \”Regulation\” means every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application or the amendment, supplement or revision of any such rule, regulation, order or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure, except one which is related only to the internal management of the state agency. \”Regulation\” does not mean or include any form prescribed by a state agency or any instructions relating to the use of the form, but this provision is not a limitation upon any requirement that a regulation be adopted pursuant to this part when one is needed to implement the law under which the form is Issued. (Government Code 11342 b.) (Handbook 17-001.1) 1110-2 \”Handbook\” material is informational only; it explains and illustrates regulatory sections by example. It is advisory and interpretive in the sense of illustrating appropriate application of a regulation; it may recommend specific processes or methods of implementation of a regulation. However, in order to provide a single source document for departmental clients (county welfare departments, licensees, etc.), appropriate statutes, regulations of other agencies, and court orders will be incorporated verbatim when the result would be helpful to understanding and full compliance with pertinent mandates in any specific program. In addition, it will include published SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 11 Mar 6, 2007 operational standards by which DSS staff evaluate performance within DSS programs, forms, forms’ instructions, and other informational materials. (Handbook 17-001.2) 1110-3 Manual letters are informational. They are used to transmit new or revised DSS Regulations or \”handbook\” sections. They describe the material transmitted and explain the reasons for adoption; give the effective date, filing instructions plus any relevant information. (Handbook 17-001.3) 1110-4 All-County Letters are informational and serve to provide explanatory materials for regulations, material of general interest, or interim procedural information (e.g., new reporting dates). They may be used to clarify statewide questions, but do not change previously-Issued regulatory material. They may also be used to trigger required responses by all counties when the basic authority for such is in regulation. (Handbook 17-001.4) 1110-5 Information notices or unnumbered letters are used to transmit statewide information of short- term interest, booklets, or other materials (including single advance copies of newly adopted regulations). They serve to explain the purpose in sending the attachment; they may include a brief description or summary. (Handbook 17-001.5) 1200-1 Whenever, by the express or implied terms of any statute, a state agency has authority to adopt regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, no regulation adopted is valid or effective unless consistent and not in conflict with the statute and reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute. (Government Code 11342.2) 1200-2 Administrative regulations promulgated under the aegis of a statutory scheme are valid insofar as they are authorized by and consistent with the controlling statutes. (Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733, 63 Cal.Rptr. 689) 1200-3 The California Supreme Court has held that the Director of the State Department of Social Services need not apply nor enforce invalid regulations in \”fair hearings\”. (Woods v. Superior Court of Butte County (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 170 Cal.Rptr. 484, 620 P.2d 1032) 1200-4 The California Constitution provides that an administrative agency has no power to declare a statute unenforceable or unconstitutional on the basis of federal law or federal regulations unless an Appellate Court has made a determination that the statute is unconstitutional or unenforceable on such grounds. (California Constitution, Article III, 3.5) 1200-5 In reviewing whether the Department of Transportation’s action to rescind the passive restraint requirement for automobile manufacturers was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the following analysis: SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 12 Mar 6, 2007 The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 245-246, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962). In reviewing that explanation, we must ‘consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.’ Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, supra, 419 U.S., at 285, 95 S.Ct., at 442; Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, supra, 401 U.S., at 416, 91 S.Ct., at 823. Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies: ‘We may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.’ SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1577, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). We will however, ‘uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.’ Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, supra, 419 U.S., at 286, 95 S. Ct. 106 (1973) (per curiam) (Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual. (1983) 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866) 1200-6 In the June 1995 UCLA Law Review, Professor Michael Asimow discusses review of California administrative agency actions which allow discretion to the agency. In exercising discretion, an agency generally must consider and balance various factors established by statute, constitution or common law. A reviewing court decides independently whether the agency considered all of the legally relevant factors and whether it considered factors that it should not have considered. [Footnotes omitted] Within the legal limits constraining an agency’s discretion, the agency has power to choose between alternatives. A court must not substitute its judgment for the agency’s, since the legislature delegated discretionary power to the agency, not to the court. Nevertheless, a court should reverse if an agency’s choice was an abuse of discretion. [Footnotes omitted] Review for abuse of discretion consists of two distinct inquiries: the adequacy of the factual underpinning of the discretionary decision and the rationality of the choice. [Footnotes omitted] (Asimow, Michael, 42 UCLA Law Review 1157, 1228, 1229, June 1995) 1201-1 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 the person is refused the opportunity to submit a signed application for such services, and the person is dissatisfied with the action or inaction, the person or his or her authorized representative shall be accorded an opportunity for a state hearing. A \”recipient\” means an applicant for or recipient of public social services, except aid exclusively financed by county funds, or under Article 1 (commencing with 12000) to Article 6 (commencing with 12250) of Chapter 3, Part 3, or under Chapter 6 (commencing with 18350) of Part 6. (Welfare and Institutions Code 10950) SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 13 Mar 6, 2007 1201-2 ADDED 8\/05 Each county shall maintain a local child support agency, as specified in Section 17304, that shall have the responsibility for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, including medical support, enforcing spousal support orders established by a court of competent jurisdiction, and determining paternity in the case of a child born out of wedlock. In carrying out its obligations under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 651 et seq.), the local child support agency shall have the responsibility for promptly and effectively collecting and enforcing child support obligations. (California Family Code 17400(a) and 17500. (a)) 1201-2A ADDED 8\/05 Each local child support agency shall maintain a complaint resolution process. A complaint shall be made within 90 days after the custodial or noncustodial parent affected knew or should have known of the child support action complained of. A custodial or non-custodial parent who is dissatisfied with the LCSA’s resolution of a complaint shall be accorded an opportunity for a state hearing. The California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) has promulgated implementing regulations in Title 22, Division 13, of the California Code of Regulations (California Family Code 17800 and 17801) 1201-3 The Court of Appeals has held that the referral of a recipient’s case to the SIU, the investigation of the case by the SIU, and the subsequent referral by the SIU to the District Attorney are all internal actions having no immediate or direct impact on plaintiff’s application for or receipt of benefits. Consequently they are not actions which are subject to the state hearing process. (Madrid v. McMahon (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 151, 228 Cal.Rptr. 14) The court also stated that the test of whether an agency action is subject to challenge in a fair hearing is whether it has a significant effect on the claimant’s application for or receipt of the aid or other service provided by the county agency. (Madrid, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at 156) 1201-4 The Board of Supervisors shall prescribe the compensation of all county officers and shall provide for the number, compensation, tenure, appointment and conditions of employment of county employees. (Government Code (Gov.C) 25300) The Board of Supervisors of any county may establish the office of county hearing officer. The duties of the office are to conduct hearings for the county or any board, agency, commission, or committee of the county. (Gov.C 27720) Any county may contract with the Office of Administrative Hearings of the State of California and the office is hereby authorized to contract for services for an Administrative Law Judge or Hearing Officer to conduct hearings pursuant to this chapter. (Gov.C 27727) 1201-5 The administration of public social services in each of the several counties of the state is declared to be a county function and responsibility and therefore rests upon the Boards of Supervisors in the respective counties pursuant to the applicable laws, and in the case of public social services for which federal or state funds are provided, subject to the regulations of the California Departments of Social and Health Services. For the purpose of providing for and SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 14 Mar 6, 2007 carrying out this function and responsibility, the Board of Supervisors of each county, or other agency as may be otherwise provided by county charter, shall establish a county department, unless otherwise provided by the county charter. Except as otherwise provided, the county department shall be the county agency for the administration of public social services and for the promotion of public understanding of the public social services provided under this code and the problems with which they deal. (Welfare and Institutions Code 10800) 1202-1 Collateral estoppel precludes a party to an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and determined in a prior proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. Ltd. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439, Clark v. Lesher (1958) 46 Cal.2d 874, 239 P.2d 865) In Teitelbaum, the Supreme Court held that a guilty plea is admissible in a subsequent civil trial as an admission, but such plea is not conclusive for the purpose of applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The principles of collateral estoppel apply to the decisions of administrative agencies when the agencies are acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. (Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1961) 55 Cal.2d 728, 13 Cal.Rptr. 104, 361 P.2d 712; People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77) In order for the principles of collateral estoppel to apply, three elements must be present: (1) the issue decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the previous proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding. (People v. Taylor (1974) 12 Cal.3d 686, 117 Cal.Rptr. 70) Only judgments which are free from direct attack are final and may not be modified. See Morris v. McCauley’s Quality Transmission Service (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 964, 132 Cal.Rptr. 37. With respect to administrative hearings, an agency’s hearing decision is to be regarded as final unless the agency has the statutory authority to subsequently modify the decision. See Olive Proration Program v. Agriculture Commission (1941) 17 Cal.2d 204, 109 P.2d 918. 1202-2 Frommhagen v. Board of Santa Cruz County (1987) 243 Cal.Rptr. 390, 1977 Cal.App.3d 1292 discussed the doctrine of res judicata. As follows: \”The doctrine of res judicata has a double aspect. First, it precludes parties or their privies from relitigating the same cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Second, although a second suit between the same parties on a different cause of action is not precluded by a prior judgment, the first judgment operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action. (Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tholen, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 696; 173 Cal.Rptr. 23; 7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Judgment, Sections 243, 249, 253; see also, Commissioner v. Sunnen (1948) 333, U.S. 591, 597-598, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898.) This second aspect of res judicata is commonly referred to as collateral estoppel. (117 Cal.App.3d at p. 697, 173 Cal. Rptr. 23; 7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure, supra, Section 253.)\” [See 243 Cal.Rptr. at 393-394.] SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 15 Mar 6, 2007 The court then went on to discuss the collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata: \”The collateral estoppel aspect of res judicata will apply as to all issues which were involved in the prior case even through some factual matters or legal arguments which could have been presented in the prior case in support of such issues were not presented. (Kingsbury v. Tevco, Inc. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 314, 318 [144 Cal.Rptr.] 773….) Thus, where two lawsuits are brought and they arise out of the same alleged factual situation, and although the causes of action or forms of relief may be different, the prior determination of an issue in the first lawsuit becomes conclusive in the subsequent lawsuit between the same parties with respect to that issue and also with respect to every matter which might have been urged to sustain or defeat its determination. (Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McConnell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 715, 724-725 [285 P.2d 636]….) If the legal principle were otherwise, litigation would end finally only when a party could no longer find counsel whose knowledge and imagination could conceive of different theories of relief based upon the same factual background. (Kronkright v. Gardner (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 214 [107 Cal.Rptr. 270]….)\” (Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tholen, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at p. 697, 173 Cal.Rptr. 23.)\” See Frommhagen, supra, 243 Cal.Rptr. at 394-395. 1202-3 The Second District Court of Appeals stated as follows as regards to administrative collateral estoppel: \”Collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action matters previously litigated and determined. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 604, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439.) The traditional elements of collateral estoppel include the requirement that the prior judgment be final. (Ibid.) \”Finality for the purposes of administrative collateral estoppel may be understood as a two step process: (1) The decision must be final with respect to action by the administrative agency (see Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5, subd. (a)); and (2) the decision must have conclusive effect (Sandoval v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 932, 936-937, 190 Cal.Rptr. 29)… \”A decision attains the requisite administrative finality when the agency has exhausted its jurisdiction and possesses ‘no further power to reconsider or rehear the claim (Fn. omitted.)’ (Chas L. Harney, Inc. v. State of California (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 77, 98, 31 Cal.Rptr.524.)… \”Next, the decision must have conclusive effect. (Sandoval v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d 932, 936-937, 190 Cal.Rptr.29.) In other words, the decision must be free from direct attack. (People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 486, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 651 P.2d 321.) A direct attack on an administrative decision may be made by appeal to the superior court for review by petition for administrative mandamus. (Code Civ.Proc., 1094.5.) A decision will not be given collateral estoppel effect if such appeal has been taken or if the time for such appeal has not lapsed. (Sandoval v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.3d at pp. 936-937, 190 Cal.Rptr. 29; Producers Dairy Delivery Co. v. Sentry Ins. Co. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 903, 911, 226 Cal.Rptr. 558, 718 P.2d 920.)… A statute of SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 16 Mar 6, 2007 limitations commences to run at the point where a cause of action accrues and a suit may be maintained thereon. (Dillon v. Board of Pension Comm’rs. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 427, 430, 116 P.2d 37.)\” (Long Beach Unified School District v. State of California (1990) 275 Cal.Rptr. 449) This case was followed by the California Court of Appeal, First District. The court said there that \”but according to California Law, a judgment is not final for purposes of collateral estoppel while open to direct attack, e.g., by appeal.\” (Abelson v . Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. (1994) 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 13, 19) 1202-4 The First District Court of Appeal has held that collateral estoppel effect may not be accorded the judgment of a small claims court or Superior Court in an action arising under the Small Claims Act. (Craig-Casey v. Rosse (1995) 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 680) 1202-5 The First District Court of Appeal has held that an order of restitution imposed by the Superior Court judge following a guilty plea in criminal court did not collaterally estop the CDSS (or its agent counties) from seeking to collect a larger dollar amount from the overpaid AFDC recipient in an administrative proceeding, i.e., the state hearing. (Shor v. Dept. of Social Services (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 70, 272 Cal. Rptr. 632) 1202-6 Applying the principles of collateral estoppel adopted by the California Supreme Court in Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Inc. Co., Ltd. (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 601, the Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court in a civil proceeding could not give collateral estoppel effect to a criminal conviction involving the same issues when the conviction resulted from a guilty plea. (Pease v. Pease (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 29, 266 Cal. Rptr. 762) 1202-7 A principle of law that bars relitigation of matter is called issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. In addressing this matter in an appeal from a summary judgment by the trial court (which affirmed the administrative hearing decision to uphold the discharge of the petitioner from the Los Angeles Department of Public Works) the Second Appellate District, Division Four, stated as follows: \”Issue preclusion prevents ‘relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.’ (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.) The threshold requirements for issue preclusion are: (1) the issue is identical to that decided in the former proceeding, (2) the issue was actually litigated in the former proceeding, (3) the issue was necessarily decided in the former proceeding, (4) the decision in the former proceeding is final and on the merits, and (5) preclusion is sought against a person who was a party or in privity with a party to the former proceeding. (Ibid.) When those requirements are met, the propriety of preclusion depends upon whether application will further the public policies of ‘preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of the judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation.’ (Id. at p. 343.) Issue preclusion is not limited to barring relitigation of court findings. It also ‘bars the relitigating of issues which were previously resolved in an SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 17 Mar 6, 2007 administrative hearing by an agency acting in a judicial capacity.’ (Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Cal. App.3d 235, 242.)\” (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 2001 92 Cal.App. 4th 477, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 870) 1203-1 There is no authority within the state hearing process with which to award damages or injunctive relief based on tortious conduct on the part of the County Welfare Department. (Ramos v. Madera County (1971) 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93) 1203-2 The county director shall comply with and execute every decision of the Director of the Department of Social Services or the Department of Health Services. (Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC) 10963) This statutory language is mandatory, and applies to initial state hearing decisions pending rehearing. (Taylor v. McKay (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 644, 126 Cal.Rptr. 204) Even if the initial state hearing decision is found erroneous on rehearing or direct review, the county remains liable for interim payments. The right to receive benefits vests when the initial decision is adopted by the Director. (Blackburn v. Sarsfield (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 143, 178 Cal.Rptr. 15) 1203-6 The California Rules of Court deal with whether unpublished opinions may be cited. The rules provide as follows: (a) An opinion of a Court of Appeal or an appellate department of the superior court that is not certified for publication or ordered published shall not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action or proceeding except as provided in subdivision (b). (b) Such an opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) when the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action or proceeding because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action or proceeding. (c) A copy of any opinion citable under subdivision (b) or of a cited opinion of any court that is available only in a computer-based source of decisional law shall be furnished to the court and all parties by attaching it to the document in which it is cited, or, if the citation is to be made orally, within a reasonable time in advance of citation. (d) An opinion of the Court of Appeal ordered published by the Supreme Court pursuant to rule 976 is citable. (California Rules of Court, 977) 1204-1 Unless otherwise provided, and, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, the residence of a minor person shall be determined by the following rules: SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 18 Mar 6, 2007 (a) The residence of the parent with whom a child maintains his or her place of abode or the residence of any individual who has been appointed legal guardian or the individual who has been given the care or custody by a court of competent jurisdiction, determines the residence of the child. (b) Wherever in this section it is provided that the residence of a child is determined by the residence of the person who has custody, \”custody\” means the legal right to custody of the child unless that right is held jointly by two or more persons, in which case \”custody\” means the physical custody of the child by one of the persons sharing the right to custody. (c) The residence of a foundling shall be deemed to be that of the county in which the child is found. (d) If the residence of the child is not determined under (a), (b), (c), or (e), the county in which the child is living shall be deemed the county of residence, once the child has had a physical presence in the county for one year. (e) If the child has been declared permanently free from the custody and control of his or her parents, his or her residence is the county in which the court issuing the order is situated. (Welfare and Institutions Code 17.1) 1204-2 If a child has been declared permanently free from the custody and control of his or her parents, his or her residence is the county in which the court issuing the order is situated. (Welfare and Institutions Code 17.1(e)) 1204-3 Any use of or reference to the words \”age of majority,\” \”age of minority,\” \”adult,\” \”minor\” or words of similar intent in any instrument, order, transfer, or governmental communication shall on or after March 4, 1972 make reference to persons 18 years of age and older, or younger than 18 years of age. (Family Code 6502) 1205-1 If a person was born abroad and one parent is an alien and the other a citizen, the citizen parent must, prior to the birth of the child of such parent, have been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period of not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of 14, in order for the child of such parents to be considered a citizen. Periods of overseas service in the armed forces would count toward the physical residence requirement, as long as the individual in question was born on or after December 24, 1952. (8 United States Code 1401(g)) 1205-2 Federal law provides that a child born outside of the United States of alien parents becomes a citizen of the United States upon the naturalization of both parents. (8 United States Code (USC) 1432(a)(1)) SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 19 Mar 6, 2007 1210-1 State law sets forth the minimum wage requirements for most California employees. These minimum wages with their effective dates, are: Hourly Amount Date $4.75 10\/1\/96 5.00 3\/1\/97 5.15 9\/1\/97 5.75 3\/1\/98 6.25 1\/1\/01 (Cal. Labor Code 11040(4.)(A)) Effective January 1, 2002, the minimum wage was increased to $6.75 per hour. (All-County Information Notice No. I-114-01, December 31, 2001) 1210-1A ADDED 3\/07 Assembly Bill 1835, Chapter 230, Statutes of 2006 added California Labor Code section 1182.12 to specify that effective January 1, 2007 the state hourly minimum wage increased to $7.50 an hour. Effective January 1, 2008 the state minimum wage increases to $8.00 an hour (All County Information Notice I-99-06, December 29, 2006) 1210-2 ADDED 4\/04 As a general rule: Public assistance overpayments which are not the result of misrepresentation or fraud are dischargeable under bankruptcy law. A Trustee is named for every bankruptcy proceeding. The Trustee is the contact person for any creditor having an interest in the bankruptcy proceeding, such as a county welfare department. In order for a debt to be discharged, it must be listed in the bankruptcy schedule of debts. The listing of debts gives the debtor’s creditors an opportunity to complain as to the dischargeability of their debts. A county welfare department should always make sure that it is listed as a creditor with the trustee, if the recipient who is filing for bankruptcy owes the county money. This ensures the county a chance of sharing in any proceeds from the bankrupt business or estate. The county should also use the right of set-off to balance underpayments and overpayments. Acceptable evidence of a discharged debt would be a copy of the \”order granting discharge\” issued by the bankruptcy court. Interim orders by the bankruptcy court will also require suspension of all collection efforts, including grant adjustments and\/or balancing. If a recipient, or former recipient, of public assistance who owes the county money because of an overissuance\/overpayment goes through the bankruptcy but does not get SHD Paraphrased Regulations – Legal Principles 1000 Legal Principles ParaRegs-Legal-Principles-Legal-Principles Page: 20 Mar 6, 2007 the overissuance\/overpayment discharged by the Bankruptcy Court, the debt is usually still valid and county should continue its collection efforts. If the overissuance\/overpayment debt is discharged the Bankruptcy Court, it is no longer collectible. The county should cease all collection efforts. For cash assistance recipients, liens against real property are generally considered security interests and remained enforceable despite the bankruptcy proceeding. Overissuance\/overpayment debts which result from recipient misrepresentation or fraud are not dischargeable under bankruptcy law. The county should inform the trustee of the case facts is such a debt is proposed to be discharged. It will then be up to the bankruptcy court to decide whether or not the debt is dischargeable. Existing debts which are known only to the creditors and which are not disclosed by them until after bankruptcy proceedings are completed may not be collectible. (All-County Information Notice I-65-86, July 18, 1986) ”

” ”

” 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 ”

“California Department of Social Services – State Hearings Division\u2028 Notes from the Training Bureau – April 26, 2002 Item 02-04-03A Equitable Estoppel Update Vang Case Decided May an Administrative Law Judge apply equitable estoppel in a food stamp case? Based on a recent Court of Appeal decision, an Administrative Law Judge may not apply equitable estoppel in a food stamp case. On March 20, 2002, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District in Vang v. Saenz and Veneman, (Superior Court No. CV370072) reversed the Superior Court decision of 1993 which had held that equitable estoppel was an appropriate remedy in food stamp overissuance cases. The Court of Appeal held that federal law controls and precludes the application of equitable estoppel where the result would be to permit food stamp recipients to retain benefits for which they are not eligible. Vang is an unpublished decision. The CDSS’ request to have the case published was denied. The plaintiffs had not filed an appeal to the California Supreme Court as of the date this Notes was issued. Per CDSS, even though this decision is unpublished, it must be followed. (Note: Equitable estoppel has never been considered an appropriate remedy in a food stamp underissuance case. However, nothing precludes an Administrative Law Judge from applying equitable estoppel by considering the amount of food stamps the claimant lost due to receipt of CalWORKs and then reducing the amount of recoupable CalWORKs overpayment by the amount of lost food stamps.) In the state hearing concerning Vang, an Administrative Law Judge wrote a proposed decision and applied equitable estoppel to preclude the county from recouping a $3465 overissuance. CDSS issued an alternate decision reversing the judge’s proposed decision. In Vang at the Superior Court, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) argued that equitable estoppel was never an appropriate remedy in a food stamp case because food stamps are 100% federally funded. In concluding that equitable estoppel was an appropriate remedy, the Sacramento Superior Court concluded that Vang \”does not present the issue of eligibility for food stamp benefits. It raises a question concerning collection of overissued benefits, a function Congress has delegated to the state.\” In reversing the Superior Court decision, the Court of Appeal stated: \”…resolution of this dispute does not turn on state principles of equitable estoppel, … but on federal law.\” In citing the Appropriations clause of the United States Constitution, the court cited OPM v. Richmond (1990) 496 U.S. 414. Richmond in pertinent part stated: \”As for monetary claims, it is enough to say that this Court has never upheld an assertion of estoppel against the Government by a claimant seeking public funds….\” Plaintiffs argued that Richmond did not apply to Vang because Richmond involved a claim for benefits from the public treasury, whereas Vang involves an attempt by the Government to recover funds already paid. In rejecting plaintiffs’ argument, the Court of Appeal stated: \”Whether an aid recipient is seeking payment of funds to which he is not entitled, or whether the government is seeking return of funds erroneously paid, the effect is the same. The claimant is attempting to establish a right to funds that have not been appropriated to that purpose.\” Judges are reminded that in food stamp cases, Lomeli v. Saenz may provide a legal remedy by limiting the amount of overissuance that may be recouped at least for those who are receiving or who could receive food stamps. Also, of note is that the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) commented in the federal register at 65 FR 41675 that \”State agencies are currently authorized to compromise claims when households are unable to pay because of hardship and similar reasons.\” However, by regulation California does not compromise claims. See MPP 63-801.222. New Paraphrased Regulations The following new paraphrased regulations have been added regarding equitable estoppel: In discussing whether equitable estoppel could be applied against public agencies, the Appellate Courts have offered the following guidelines: \”The courts of this state have been careful to apply the rules of estoppel against a public agency only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it. [citations omitted] However, if such exceptional case does arise and if the ends of justice clearly demand it, estoppel can and will be applied even against a public agency. Of course, the facts upon which such an estoppel must rest go beyond the ordinary principles of estoppel and each case must be examined carefully and rigidly to be sure that a precedent is not established through which, by favoritism or otherwise, the public interest may be mulcted or public policy defeated. [citations omitted].\” City of Imperial Beach v. Algert (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 48, 52) \”Factors to be considered in a claim of estoppel against a public agency include consideration of the degree of negligence or culpability of the public agency (Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, 307), whether and to what extent the agency is certain of the knowledge or information it dispenses (see Phillis v. City of Santa Barbara (1967) 229 Cal.App.2d 45, 60), whether it purports to advise and direct or merely to inform and respond to inquiries (see Tyra v. Board of Police etc. Commrs. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 666, 670), and whether it acts in bad faith. (See Lorenson v. City of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 334, 340).\” (Lee v. Board of Administration (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 122, 134) \u00a8 \u00a8 \u00a8 The Court of Appeals relied on the Supreme Court as to the manner of applying equitable estoppel against the government. The Crumpler court cited City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462, 91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423. \”The court there declared it to be settled that ‘[tlhe doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied against the government where justice and right require it’ but that an estoppel will not be applied against the government if to do so would effectively nullify ‘a, strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public ‘ (At p. 493, 91 Cal.Rptr. at p. 45, 476 P.2d at P. 445.) The court observed that ‘[t]he tension between these twin principles makes up the doctrinal context in which concrete cases are decided.’ After a review of a number of cases the court phrased the rule governing the application of equitable estoppel against the government as follows:’ The government may be bound by an equitable estoppel in the same manner as a private party when the elements requisite to such an estoppel against a private party are present and, in the considered view of a court of equity, the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel\” (See Crumpler v. Board of Administration Emp. Retire. Sys. (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 578, 580)\u2028The Crumpler court went on to analyze whether equitable estoppel should be applied to prevent the retroactive reclarification of plaintiffs, animal control officers: \”All of the requisite elements of equitable estoppel are present insofar as the city is concerned. The city was apprised of the facts. The city knew that petitioners were being employed by the police department as animal control officers at the time it erroneously advised them they would be entitled to retirement benefits as local safety members. The fact that the advice may have been given in good faith does not preclude the application of estoppel. Good faith conducts of a public officer or employee does not excuse inaccurate information negligently given. (Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 67 Cal.2d 297, 307-308, 61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245; Orinda-County Fire Protection Dist. v. Frederickson and Watson Co., 174 Cal.App.2d 589, 593, 344 P.2d 873.) ‘In a matter as important to the welfare of a public employee as his pension rights, the employing public agency ‘bears a more stringent duty’ to desist from giving misleading advice.’ (Driscoll v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 67 Cal.2d 297, 308, 61 Cal.Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245.) In the instant case the erroneous representations that petitioners would be entitled to local safety memberships if they accepted city employment was given without verifying its accuracy either by advice from the board or any other qualified person. \u2028\”All of the other requisite elements of equitable estoppel against the city were established by uncontradicted evidence. The city manifestly intended its erroneous representations to be acted upon and petitioners relied upon the representations to their injury by relinquishing other employment to accept city employment and by paying over the years the greater contributions required of safety members. Petitioner Crumpler served as animal control officer for over 20 years. During those years he paid safety member contributions and arranged his personal financial affairs in the expectation he would ultimately receive the retirement benefits of a safety member. Petitioner Ingold relinquished federal civil service employment with 15 years accrued federal pension rights to accept city employment on the representation that his city pension rights would be that of a safety member. \”The board virtually concedes the city would be estopped but urges that estoppel may not be invoked against the board because it had no knowledge that petitioners were employed as animal control officers and not policemen until a routine investigation in 1968 revealed the true facts. We reject the board’s position. \”The relationship between the city and the board is such that estoppel of the city is binding on the board. An estoppel binds not only the immediate parties to the transaction but those in privity with them. [citations omitted]… (Crumpler, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at 581, 582) \”Petitioners’ contention that the board is forever precluded from reclassifying them because they have a vested right to be classified as local safety members is devoid of merit. It is true that upon acceptance of public employment provisions of the applicable pension law become an integral part of the contract of employment, and that any modifications affecting earned pension rights of active employees must be reasonable, related to the theory of a sound pension system, and any changes detrimental to the individual must be offset by comparable new advantages. However, correction of an erroneous classification cannot be equated to a modification or alteration of earned pension rights. Petitioners have no vested right in an erroneous classification. Indeed, as we have noted, the act expressly provides for correction of errors such as occurred in the instant case. The provisions of section 20180 being as much a part of the contract of employment as other provisions of the retirement act, exercise of the power conferred by the section involves no violation or impairment of petitioners’ contractual or vested rights. \”It is our conclusion that the board is estopped from reclassifying petitioners for the period of membership prior to the board’s decision of August 18, 1971, but is not so estopped from reclassifying petitioners to miscellaneous membership prospectively from the date of that decision.\” (Crumpler, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at 585) \u00a8 \u00a8 \u00a8 The California Court of Appeal, Third District, discussed the doctrine of \”laches\” in the case of Lam v. Bureau of Security and Investigation Services: \”Statutes of limitation and the doctrine of laches are both designed \”to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.\”‘ [Citations.]\” (Brown, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1161.) These policies also guard against other injuries caused by a change of position during a delay. While a statute of limitations bars proceedings without proof of prejudice, laches \”requires proof of delay which results in prejudice or change of position.\” (Ibid.) Delay alone ordinarily does not constitute laches, as lapse of time is separately embodied in statutes of limitation. (Id. at p. 1159.) What makes the delay unreasonable in the case of laches is that it results in prejudice. (Ibid.)\” (Lam, supra, 34 Cal.App. 4th 29, 36-37) Decision Writing in Equitable Estoppel Cases When an Administrative Law Judge writes a decision in an equitable estoppel case, it is necessary that the judge explain each element discussed and do so in a sequential order. Thus if the judge determines that the third element of equitable estoppel is not met, the judge needs to discuss at least briefly, that elements one and two are met before concluding that element three is not met. In most cases involving CalWORKs overpayments and food stamp overissuances, the first three elements of equitable estoppel are met. For the first three elements, it is usually sufficient to explain how that element is met in one sentence each. When discussing elements four and five however, the judge needs to give more than a one-sentence explanation of how that element is met or not met. This is especially true when the fourth element is decided based on the issue of hardship. The following are examples of discussions regarding the fourth and fifth elements of equitable estoppel that are not sufficiently explained in the decision: \”It is concluded based on the claimant’s testimony that she has a hardship in repaying the overpayment. Therefore the fourth element of equitable estoppel is met.\” \”It is concluded that there is no hardship in this case. Therefore the fourth element of equitable estoppel is not met.\” \”In balancing the equities, the interest of the government in recouping the overpayment outweighs the interest of the claimant in claiming that he should not have to repay the overissuance. \”The interest of the claimant in not having to repay the overpayment clearly outweighs the interest of the government in recouping the overpayment. Therefore equitable estoppel applies in this case.\” The following are examples of more appropriate discussions of the fourth and fifth elements of equitable estoppel: The claimant has demonstrated that she has relied upon the county’s conduct to her injury regarding the CalWORKs overpayment she received from August 2000 through May 2001. Even though the claimant was employed, her earnings are not sufficient to provide her with the means to pay the overpayment. She has to support four children. Her expenses substantially exceed her income on a monthly basis. It is therefore determined that the claimant will suffer a substantial hardship if she is required to repay the CalWORKs overpayment. The fourth element of equitable estoppel thus applies because of the claimant’s hardship in repaying the overpayment. It is determined that the justice and right require equitable estoppel be applied to preclude the county from recouping this CalWORKs overpayment. The claimant fully and completely reported her income to the county at all times at issue. The county failed to consider any of this reported information in computing the monthly grant in any month at issue. The overpayment persisted for ten months and resulted in a substantial amount of overpayment (over $4500). The claimant not only reported all of her income on each monthly report for ten months, she specifically asked her eligibility worker whether the income she was receiving would cause her CalWORKs grant to be reduced. The eligibility worker told the claimant that she should not worry about the CalWORKs grant because she (the eligibility worker) knew what she was doing. For all the reasons stated above, it is concluded that in balancing the interests of the claimant and the county, justice and right require that the doctrine of equitable estoppel to be applied in this case to preclude the county from recouping the overpayment in this case. \u00a8 \u00a8 \u00a8 Although the first four elements of equitable estoppel apply in this case, it is concluded that justice and right do not require that equitable estoppel be applied to preclude the county from recouping the CalWORKs overpayment in this case. The overpayment lasted only for two months, a relatively short period of time. The claimant is asked to repay a CalWORKs overpayment to which she is not entitled. In light of the benefit she received as a result of receiving the overpayment, she has not established that she is significantly worse off than if she had never received the overpayment While this judge does not question that there will be some hardship for the claimant to repay the overpayment, the total amount to be repaid is $431 which is not an exceedingly large amount. The claimant’s testimony establishes that her monthly expenses slightly exceed monthly income. Nonetheless, pursuant to state regulations, the county is required to recoup the overpayment even though it was caused by county error. This is not the type of exceptional or special case contemplated by City of Imperial Beach v. Algert when applying equitable estoppel against the government. In fact, it is a rather routine CalWORKs overpayment in that it lasted for a short period of time and was caused by a county failure to act on reported income. It is thus concluded that equitable estoppel does not apply to the facts of this case. The claimant is free to negotiate with the county to try to reach a reasonable repayment agreement that takes into consideration that the claimant has limited resources and that the overpayment was caused solely by county error. ”

“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). ”