Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Administrative Law Outline
Administrative Law Outline
Branches of US Gov’t – (1) Executive (includes admin tribunals), (2) Legislative (adopts laws), Judicial (the court)
Functions of an Agency – All functions are combined. An agency can have 3 functions (E, L, J), but there has to be a separation of
the 3 functions
Anatomy of the Written Decision – (1) Preliminaries (time, place of hearing, jurisdiction, etc.), (2) Findings of Fact, (3) Conclusions
of Law, (4) The Order, (5) Advisement of Appeal Rights
Agencies have been described as the “headless” fourth branch. Because they do not fit neatly in the scheme of Separation of Powers
Agencies are created to implement specific legislative purposes. As such, Agencies have a combination of functions
• EXECUTIVE – Enforcement
• LEGISLATIVE – Rulemaking
• JUDICIAL – Adjudications
To do these functions, the agency must interpret any vague or imprecise language to:
• Identify scope of its authority
• Determine the exact meaning to be given to the imprecise language
• Identify the specific legislative goals to be achieved
• Identify the exact methods it is authorized to use to achieve the desired results
1
Delegation
• Admin agency has power to determine individual rights and responsibilities by deciding specific cases, the agency exercise a
portion of power of the judicial branch
• Agency decisions are final and binding on the parties over whom the agency has jurisdiction unless set aside by a reviewing
court
• Judicial review of agency decisions is generally limited in scope
• De novo review is almost unheard of because it would undermine the entire administrative agency concept
You can have higher standards, but cannot have lower standards
APA sets a minimum – cannot have something lesser than the APA
***Exhaustion - Must exhaust all remedies before you go to court – unless agency has done something egregious.
2 principal applications of exhaustion doctrine:
1. A plaintiff may not forego the administrative procedure and file suit directly
2. Any claims or issues not presented in prior administrative proceedings may not be raised on judicial review
2
• Is the prospect of obtaining relief as a result of a favorable ruling too speculative
Checklist of Reasons Supporting Judicial Intervention when there is a Failure to Adopt Rules
• Failure to adopt rules is an abuse of discretion
• Agency’s organic legislation requires rules
• APA requires rules
• CL or equitable consideration require rules
Substantive Rules
• Opportunity for public participation is important because the substantive rules will have the force of law. They will contain
precise standards and criteria for compliance by those in the regulated community
• To do this, agency must follow rulemaking procedures laid out in the APA
For Substantive Rule to have force of law, it must be:
• Within authority of agency under its organic legislation
• Promulgated according to procedures specified in the agency’s organic act or APA, and
• Must not violate a superior source of law, (state or federal constitution)
If the rule meets these tests, one who violates it is in the same position as one who violated a statute enacted by the legislature
Interpretative Rule – agency’s statement of position You need to have a strong position to go against an interpretative rule
Organic Legislation – original legislative statute of agency Ex. FBI – to enforce the laws
3
If there are standards then it was reviewable.
Judicial Review Unavailable When Agency Action Committed to Agency Discretion – 5 USC Sec 701a
• Citizens of Overland Park v. Volpie
• No law standard
• Sec. of Transportation approved the construction of a highway that ran through a public park
• Statute provided guidelines for Sec. discretion, unless there are standards for the exercise of discretion.
• No feasible and prudent alternative and the program included all possible planning to minimize harm to the park. 2 standards
for the Secretary’s discretion.
• Had standards – here is the evidence presented. There were other alternatives. Statute provided guidelines
• SC ruled – actions committed to agency discretion was a “very narrow exception” applicable only when “there is no law to
apply.”
Judicial Review – short circuiting the exhaustion doctrine. When courts will intervene before exhaustion has been applied.
Londoner v. Denver – Due process required that the Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. Of Equalization – Court
landowner must have had an opportunity to be heard. The concluded landowner given all the process that was due.
mere submission of objections and complaints did not satisfy Court noted the change adopted applied to every landowner in
due process the city. Property owners “all stand alike”
RULEMAKING
Advantages to Rulemaking
• Consistency
• Subjects agency to greater public scrutiny
• Promotes equal treatment of all parties
• Better assures a proper way of decisional criteria
• Facilitates judicial review – court can review rule more easily
Compliance with the APA is required where an agency's interpretation of law established agency policy and procedure
• Where APA requirements were not met the rule was not enforceable
Notice of Rulemaking
Must contain:
• Statement of time, place and nature of public rulemaking proceedings
4
• Reference to legal authority under which the rule is proposed
• Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or description of the subjects and issues involved
The Courts will stand on their heads to try to review an agency’s decision
Skidmore Deference
• Doctrine of “cautious deference” to agency interpretations of statutes
Chevron Deference
• Deference to “any reasonable interpretations” of ambiguous statutory provisions
• Court may not substitute own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation
• When Congress has not addressed a disputed issue of interpretation, the courts must presume that Congress has delegated
interpretative authority to the agency
• Chevron deference does not apply to an administrative agency’s opinion letter interpreting a regulation of the agency
Negotiated Rulemaking
An agency may establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) to negotiate and develop a proposed rule if the agency head
determines that its use is in the public interest
Determination is based on
• Need for a rule
• There are a limited number of interests involved that will be significantly affected by the rule
• It is likely that the committee will reach a consensus within a fixed period of time
• Procedure will not unduly delay the formal rulemaking process
• Agency has adequate resources to support the effort and will commit them to the NRC
• Agency will to the “maximum extent possible” consistent with legal obligations use the committee consensus as the basis for
the rule ultimately proposed
5
Basics of Administrative Adjudication
• Agency created (organic act) by Congress or state legislature [to regulate or administer benefits]
• Agency enforces statute – promulgates substantive rules if it has statutory authority to do so; without a hearing, it can
promulgate interpretative rules
• Issues involving violation of agency statute or substantive rule arises
• Agency investigates
• Agency gives notice of proposed action
• Violator or benefit recipient does not agree and requests hearing
• Violator or benefit recipient requests mediation – agency agrees
• Mediation unsuccessful – agency causes formal complaint to issue and a formal hearing is set, or benefit recipient requests
formal hearing
• Formal evidentiary hearing occurs
• ALJ issues initial decision or full findings (workers comp)
• Losing party files exceptions to agency or appeal to executive branch agency appellate body
• Agency does not act in 30 days – ALJ decision becomes final agency action (FAA) or agency issues FAA modifying ALJ
initial decision
• Dissatisfied party seeks timely judicial review in the judicial branch, having exhausted administrative remedies
Attempting to convince agency personnel that they meet requirements of legislation identifying those to be benefitted
• Nature of adjudication process will be determined by
o Language of agency legislation
o Provisions of APA
o Relevant agency rules
• If rejected - reconsideration at a higher lever
Citizen files a complaint -->Goes to DORA-->If case is slam dunk, non-controversial case-->DORA has process called ESP
(expedited settlement process)-->ESP has to be offered by DORA--> if not goes to licensing board-->Meets once a month and
considers complaints--> Can dismiss, agree to mediate, require AG to file formal complaint with OAC (Office of Administrative
Courts)--> Judge assigned and hearing set-->Issue an initial decision
If either side does not like initial decision can file appeal
Sovereign cannot sue the sovereign - one state agency cannot sue another.
Final Agency Action - judicial review goes to the district court. All licensing boards, worker's comp, all go to court of appeals as a
matter or right.
Due Process Analysis Factors - Consider all factors when analyzing whether or not due process rights have been infringed upon
• Deprivation
o Immediate, threatened, direct, indirect
6
• Property
o Entitlement, expectation, sources
• Liberty
o Stigma, good name, honor, integrity, opportunities foreclosed
• Process
o Hearing, timing, scope, lawsuit
Standing/Justiciability
• Injury (harm) must be specific and concrete
• Injury must be personal (private) interest of complainant
• Causation – injury must be proximately caused by conduct of offender
• Redressability – relief must be likely to remedy injury
Interest must be different from those shared with general public (injury must be personal to be a justiciable matter)
7
THE CENTRAL PANEL
The Rule of Necessity
• CL doctrine that permits a biased decision maker to decide because an agency is the only game in town
• Rule of Necessity is strongly disfavored by the courts
• 3 alternatives to invoking the Rule of Necessity
o Court may have inherent power to appoint an impartial replacement
o Better, the legislature could amend the APA to provide for an impartial replacement
o A Central Panel is the best alternative to invoking the Rule of Necessity
§ In many cases central panel ALJs render initial decisions that go to the agency for final agency action
• In the case of a biased agency head or board that renders FAA, the agency can delegate FAA authority to the central panel
ALJ
Why Central Panels in the First Place?
• There is no federal central panel.
• As of 2009 – 25 state and 3 city central panels
• In the 1970s, state legislatures began establishing central panels because of scandals or perceived conflicts of interest
concerning agency adjudicators
• Colorado central panel established in 1976
Central Panels v. Adjudicators in the Agencies
• Perception can be everything. A perceived lack of independence and impartiality can, in and of itself, amount to a lack of
both
• If adjudicator within agency, an impenetrable wall between it and the adjudicator must be constructed to foster public
perceptions of fairness. (physical separation)
• Best impenetrable wall is the central panel. An organization of adjudicators that is a separate agency from the agencies that
are required to provide a fair hearing at the end of the administrative line
Central Panels a Good Idea for Governments
• CP offers an efficiency of scale because only function is to hear and decide contested cases
• CP projects being an independent, executive branch judiciary
• Public perceptions of fairness are similar to perceptions of the judicial branch
Once an agency refers a case to the central panel, as a practical matter, it can only take the case back to dismiss it or otherwise settle
with the Respondent-Licensee because the agency becomes a party opposing the Respondent after referral to the central panel. Also,
the agency would be violating the separation of investigative, prosecutorial and adjudication functions.
If a citizen wants to file a complaint with DORA they can send a letter to them and then an investigator will be appointed
Investigator said something there and recommend to board that they do something. The board can refer to Attorney General or file an
admonition. If goes to AG, then formal complaint and ALJ.
Immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare will allow immediate action
8
Licensees consent to reasonable inspection
You agree to certain things if you are licensed
If Organic Act permits, agencies have the authority to compel reports, records and inspections in regulatory cases
• Inspections and searched must be reasonable under the 4th amendment
• Administrative inspections and searches are 4th Amendment searches
• There are 3 exceptions to warrant requirements
1. Consent
2. Exigent circumstances (emergency)
3. Open to public access (in plain view)
License Renewal
• Amended APA to provide that if an application for renewal is denied, it shall be treated in all respects as a denial and within
60 days the license may request a hearing before the agency. The State has argued that the burden of proof is then upon the
applicant for renewal
Medical Board - physicians have a lot invested. They are high stakes.
Unprofessional Conduct/Physicians
• Fraud in seeking license
• Aiding and abetting in procuring a criminal abortion
• Conviction of an offense of moral turpitude (petty theft, case by case basis)
• Administering controlled substances other than in the course of professional care
• Conviction of violation of laws relating to controlled substances
• Habitual intemperance
• Aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of medicine
• Engaging in sexual act with patient during the course of care
• Dispensing, injecting anabolic steroids for hormonal manipulation
• Committing a fraudulent insurance act
• Any act or omission that fails to meet generally accepted standards of medical practice (Biggie)
Burden of Proof
• Licensing Agencies
o Applicant for licensure has the burden of proving qualifications
o Agency may administratively revoke, subject to licensee’s request for a hearing
o Agency has the burden of proving misconduct of licensee
• Benefits Program
o Applicant has the burden of proving qualification for benefits
9
o Agency must five notice of termination of benefits and if recipient makes a timely request for hearing, benefits must
continue
o Agency has the burden of proving that a termination of benefits is warranted
Judge Felter likes the Marchetti case. Says it is one of his favorite cases
Standing/Justiciability
• Injury (harm) must be specific and concrete. CB p.409
• Injury must be personal (private) interest of complainant. CB p.411
• Causation: Injury must be proximately caused by conduct of offender. CB p.413
• Redressability: Relief must be likely to remedy injury. CB p.414, 415. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
• Sources of Law
o Common Law Interest
o Constitutional Law Interest
o Statutory Right Interest
o Interest Created by Substantive Rule (Principally Federal)
INTEREST MUST BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHARED WITH GENERAL PUBLIC (the injury must be personal to create a
justiciable matter).
10
Intentional job discrimination may be presumed by establishing prima facie case that:
• Complainant belongs to a protected class
• The complainant was qualified for the job (by virtue of BFOQ) (bona fide occupational qualification)
• Despite other qualifications, complainant suffered an adverse employment decision
• The circumstances give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination
• Proven by looking at past hiring practices
• Burden really shifts for employer to say no, I didn't discriminate and here is why I did not discriminate
See George v. Ute Water Conservancy Dist., 950 P.2d 1195 (Colo. App. 1997).
Remedies
Employment Discrimination
Affirmative Action including:
• Back Pay
• Hiring
• Reinstatement
• Upgrading of employees, with or without back pay
• Making of Reports to the Commission
Discrimination on the Basis of Disability: Americans with Disabilities Act, State Counterpart in Colorado Civil Rights Act
• An Employer cannot refuse to hire on the basis of disability, if the prospective hire can perform the essential job functions if
reasonable accommodations are made.
• What are essential job functions? What does it take to get the job done?
• What accommodations are reasonable?
"Disability"
• Disability means a physical impairment which substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities and includes
a record of such an impairment and being regarded as having such an impairment (perceived impairment). 24-34-
301(2.5)(a), C.R.S.
• Disability shall also include such person who has a mental impairment, but such term does not include any person currently
involved in the illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. 24-34-301(2.5)(b)(i)
• The term mental impairment shall mean any mental or psychological disorder such as developmental disability, organic brain
syndrome, mental illness, or specific learning disabilities. 24-34-301(2.5)(b)(iii)
Public Accommodations/Remedies
• Forfeiture of $50 to $300 to the aggrieved person for each offense
• Guilty of misdemeanor and upon conviction a fine of $10 to $300 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both
11
• Relief under this section [24-34-602, C.R.S.] shall be an alternative to seeking relief from the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission.
Earl May v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 43 P.3d 750 (Colo. App. 2002).
• "a party has an absolute right not to appear and defend in a civil case"
• HELD - The ALJ erred in considering Mr. May's non-participation (stonewalling) in the hearing and, thus, remanded for
reconsideration of the $10,000 damages awarded.
• The case settled before any hearing on remand.
12
• Workplace disputes
• Contract disputes
• Personal injury claims
• Domestic relations disputes
• Government licensing disputes
Mediation is appropriate when/
• Strained relationships must continue
• Mis communication apparent – neutral can facilitate
• Parties may be willing to settle (confidentiality is important)
• Time factors are important
Mediation is a process that involves
• Trained facilitator that is neutral
o Determines the parties underlying interests
o Helps them arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution
• Who helps two or more parties
• Collaboratively
• Resolve their dispute
Parties to Mediation
• Participate in good faith
• Have full settlement authority
• Bring the right people with them
• Are prepared to be open and candid
• Provide a written summary of the dispute in advance for the mediator (optional)
Mediation is an Informal Process
• Voluntary – both parties must agree to be there
• Rules of evidence do not apply
• No sworn testimony – no witnesses
• Both parties must agree on resolution
BATNA – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
WATNA – Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
13
o Use time to your advantage
o Show relentless persistence and optimism
o Remind parties that the process is important
• Closure and Mediator Evaluation
o Thank all parties for attending. Remind them that the process is important
o If successful, remind that the resolution is their product
Mediation Ethics
• Ex Parte communications are OK
• Confidentiality remains inviolate
o CRS 13-22-307 – the mediator shall not be required to disclose any information concerning any mediation
communication provided in confidence
• Neutrality at all times
• Trustworthiness to all Parties
Substantive due process – controlled at time right created (not retroactive – no ex post facto laws)
Procedural due process – controlled at time the changes in statutes or rules became effective (retroactive to time of adoption)
14
Prosecuting and Defending the Professional Licensee
V. Summary
15
• How much process is “due”? – Bd. of Med. Ex. v. Boyle, 924 P.2d 1113 (Colo. App. 1996)
- due process is the right to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”
- In Colorado, if convicted of a crime, can have license revoked
- not necessarily the “right” to be present at the hearing
- or the “right” to – discovery, confrontation, strict rules of evidence (applied by statute), appointed counsel, etc.
• Not necessarily bound by rules of evidence
• Do I appeal? – the shifting standard of review – Morall v. DEA, 421 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2005) - Handled as defense counsel
- appellate standard of review of agency findings is not de novo
- findings of fact may be overturned if clearly erroneous
- ultimate findings may be overturned if unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole
- questions of law are de novo, but an agency’s interpretation of its enabling statute is entitled to deference
- sanctions may be overturned if arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law (abuse of discretion)
Judges credibility determinations get deference
INITIAL DECISIONS
• Under the Colorado APA, ALJ render Initial Decisions
• Initial Decision shall include
o Statement of findings and conclusions
o Upon all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented by the record
o The appropriate sanction, relief or denial
• The findings of evidentiary (basic) fact, as distinguished from ultimate conclusions of fact shall not be set aside unless such
findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence
• Exceptions must be filed (unless time extended) within 30 days after service of the Initial Decision
• If agency feels more evidence is necessary, it must remand to the ALJ
• In absence of timely exceptions, Initial Decision shall become FAA and shall result in waiver of right to judicial review
• With exception of human services and HCPF FAA (appeal to district courts), appeal is to Colorado Court of Appeals
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES
• Premised on assumption that there are properly authorized remedies available within the agency and they are adequate to
provide requested relief
• Permitting premature judicial review would undermine legislatively enacted administrative process
• Courts must fashion exhaustion principles consistent with congressional intent and any applicable statutory scheme
• Exhaustion may be excused when administrative remedy is unavailable or inadequate
16
Persons seeking judicial review must identify legislation that confers jurisdiction on the appropriate court
• Federal level – jurisdiction based on agency statute
• State level – jurisdictional authority based exclusively on statute
• State level – upon a showing of irreparable injury, any court of competent jurisdiction may enjoin at any time the conduct of
any agency proceeding
• Otherwise FAA is subject to judicial review after the exhaustion of administrative remedies
o Arbitrary and Capricious, Abuse of Discretion and Lack of Substantial Evidence – closely intertwined standards
o Arbitrary and Capricious if:
§ Unsupported by the evidence in the record
§ Erroneously interpreted the law (usually egregious)
§ Exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority
o Arbitrary and Capricious & Abuse of Discretion are coextensive. A court will look for:
§ Without reason (downright unreasonable)
§ Lack of substantial evidence
§ Mistake of law
§ Bad faith
§ Conflict of interest
o Substantial evidence – quantum of probative evidence which a rational fact finder would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, without regard to the existence of conflicting evidence
o Arbitrary – think of no justification or expression
o Capricious – think of no factual development
Substantial Evidence
• ALJ factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record
• The term substantial evidence has become a term of art to describe the basis on which an administrative record is to be
judged by a reviewing court
• The standard goes to the reasonableness of what the agency did on the basis of evidence before it
• Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB – SCOTUS held that when reviewing a hearing officer’s fact findings in formal
proceedings, a court must ordinarily apply the “substantial evidence” standard of the federal APA. When credibility is
important, however, the evidence supporting an agency conclusion that differs from the hearing officer’s conclusion may be
less substantial because the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision so the agency was
entitled to make its own findings on the record compiled by the hearing officer.
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
• No Fault systems designed to assure injured workers disability payments and medical treatment
• The Workers' Comp Act provides "a remedy where remedies do not exist at common law"
Take the worker as you find the worker, but if you have a worker who brings in an imported danger, no compensation
Look at what employer does
17
Workers' Compensation Basic Concepts
• No fault system
• To be covered, one must be a Colorado employee
• Arising out of employment - proximate causality - Critical Issue - Compensability - Arising out of employment
• Course and Scope of Employment
o Time
o Place
o Circumstances
• Positional (Actual) Risk - but for being at work, injury would not have occurred
• Idiopathic Injuries - unexplained fall that causes injury. There must be a special hazard of employment and not an imported
danger. Any special hazard may be enough.
• Dual Purpose Doctrine - equal benefit to employer (drive to pick up something for both employer and yourself)
• Personal Comfort Doctrine - a bathroom break
• Going to can coming from work not covered (not within course of employment)
o Exception - eating lunch on employer's premises or parking in an employer parking lot
• Recreational Activities - playing on company baseball team not covered unless a condition of continued employment
• Horseplay. Employer condoned. (Is within the scope of employment)(most of the time not within the scope and course of
employment)
• Sexual Harassment - an imported danger or widely tolerated. Horodyskj v. Karanian (2001) at center of article he wrote.
• Going to and Coming From Rule - Frolic and Detour Rule - truck drivers on duty 24 hours a day - can be close rule, can
argue both ways.
Jurisdiction
• The law of the place of contract governs
• Depending on circumstances, minimal contacts test of International Shoe may apply to a contract of employment
consummated over the telephone
• Perryman Test for Jurisdiction requires
o Contract of employment created in CO
o Employment in Colorado under a K created outside the state
o Substantial employment in CO
Concepts of Compensability
• Terms "arising out of" and "in the course and scope of employment" have separate and distinct meanings
o Arising out of - deals with proximate causal connection between the work and the injury
o Course of employment - deals with the time, place and circumstances of the injury
• Another test for compensability is the "positional risk" doctrine
o Conditions and obligations of employment place the employee in a position where injury is incurred, this is the "but
for" test
• Injuries at work caused by "neutral forces" - neither work related nor personal are compensable
• Just because someone is injured does not mean that the person sustained a compensable injury
• Dual Purpose doctrine - injury sustained while an employee is performing an act for the mutual benefit of the employee and
the employer is compensable
• The "personal comfort" doctrine - employees engaged in acts of personal comfort on the job do not leave the course of
employment
18
• Travel during work hours
• Travel occurs on the employer's premises
• Obligations or conditions of employment create a "special zone of danger" resulting in the injury
• Traveling is part of service the employee provided the employer
• Transporting the employer's supplies
• Performing a service requested by the employer
• Undertaking an action with concurrent business and personal purposes (Dual Purpose Doctrine)
• Accepting transportation offered by the employer
• Traveling between job assignments
• Reimbursement for the employee's cost of commuting (can bring auto accident for reimbursement of mileage)
• Being on "travel status" while working out of town
Lunch on the employer's premises is covered. Lunch off the premises is not covered.
5 part test for analyzing factors to determine coverage for recreational activities
• Extent the employer benefitted from the activity, beyond better employee morale
• Extent to which recreational activity represented remuneration for employment
• Whether the activity created a special danger
• Whether the activity was an inducement for employment
• Whether the activity was contemplated by the employer and employee at the time of hiring
Test for whether initiation or participation in horseplay constitutes a deviation from employment is
• Extent and seriousness of horseplay
• Horseplay comingled with the performance of a duty
• Extend did the horseplay become an accepted practice
• Extent can the nature of the employment be expected to include some horseplay
19
• Conference is informal
• Person presiding at the local dispute resolution conference shall issue a written decision explaining the applicant or
recipient’s right to request a state level fair hearing before an ALJ
Weaver v. Colorado Department of Social Services
• Court determined that notice failed to provide recipient accurate information as to the applicable regulations
o The point system had never been adopted as a formal regulation
• Citing Goldberg v. Kelly – petitioner was initially determined to be eligible for benefits, his right to continued receipt was
similar to a “property” right for purposes of application of due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
• A fair hearing before benefits can be denied
• Written notice must set forth “the reasons for the intended action” and a statement of the “specific regulations that support the
action”
• After Weaver – HCPF adopted regulations governing the point system
Moczygemba v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF)
• The test is “in imminent need of nursing home placement if no HCBS benefits are provided.”
• If applicant does not automatically qualify, second reviewer assesses the application. If applicant is denied admission to
HCBS, nurse reviewer may conduct an on-site evaluation of applicant. Thereafter, a physician reviews the matter.
• If applicant determined ineligible – may request a hearing by an ALJ
• ALJ used an “imminent risk of deterioration standard”
CRSA 26-6-106 - The administrative law judge may conduct hearings on appeals from decisions of county departments brought by
recipients of and applicants for public assistance and welfare which are required by law in order for the state to qualify for federal
funds, and may conduct other hearings for the state department. Notice of any such hearing shall be served at least ten days prior to
such hearing.
20