COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Clements 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

ROY SUDDUTH 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record Nos. 2347-08-4 and PER CURIAM 

 2348-08-4 OCTOBER 20, 2009 

 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA DEPARTMENT 

 OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Noland B. Dawkins, Judge 

Roy Sudduth, pro se. 

Noëlle L. Shaw-Bell, Assistant Attorney General 

(William C. Mims, Attorney General; David E. Johnson, 

Deputy Attorney General; Kim F. Piner, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Roy Sudduth filed a pro se appeal to the circuit court from a decision of the Virginia 

Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS), the state agency that administers the 

federal Medicaid program in Virginia. The circuit court dismissed the appeal because of various 

procedural defects, including the failure of Sudduth’s petition for appeal to comply with Rule 

2A:4(b). On this ground, we affirm. 

 The Virginia Administrative Process Act (VAPA), Code § 2.2-4025(B), authorizes 

judicial review of “case decisions” involving Medicaid benefit denials. “When the VAPA 

authorizes judicial review, it must be conducted ‘in the manner provided by the rules of the 

Supreme Court of Virginia.’” Christian v. Va. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 45 Va. App. 310, 314, 610 

S.E.2d 870, 872 (2005) (quoting Code § 2.2-4206). Under Rule 2A:4(b), a petition for appeal 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 -

“shall” identify the case decision appealed, “specify the errors” alleged, “state the reasons why 

the . . . case decision is deemed to be unlawful,” and provide a “specific statement of the relief 

requested.” See, e.g., Boone v. Harrison, 52 Va. App. 53, 63-64, 660 S.E.2d 704, 709 (2008) 

(enforcing Rule 2A:4(b)’s requirement that the petition “specify the errors”); J.P. v. Carter, 24 

Va. App. 707, 719-20, 485 S.E.2d 162, 169 (1997). 

Sudduth’s petition for appeal claimed the Alexandria Department of Human Services 

(Alexandria DHS) made “substantial procedural errors” which deprived Sudduth of having a full 

and fair hearing on his application for Medicaid benefits. The petition, however, did not mention 

—much less specify — the errors claimed. The petition added that Alexandria DHS’s findings 

of fact were “not based upon evidence in the record.” But the petition did not identify which 

findings of fact were unsupported by the record. Finally, the petition asserted that Alexandria 

DHS “misconstrued or misapplied law to the findings of fact.” Yet, once again, the petition did 

not identify any particular “law” misconstrued or misapplied by the agency. 

Sudduth’s indefinite allegations do not satisfy Rule 2A:4(b)’s requirements that the 

petition for appeal “specify the errors” alleged and “state the reasons” why the agency’s case 

decision violated the law. No reasonable reading of the petition would place the agency on 

notice of the specific issues in controversy. For this reason, the circuit court did not err in 

dismissing the petition.1

On appeal, Sudduth also claims the circuit court rendered a decision against him at a 

hearing which he did not attend because he did not receive proper notice. We need not decide 

whether the record belies Sudduth’s claim of inadequate notice because the court mooted the 

issue by granting his request to rehear the matter. Though Sudduth attended the reconsideration 

hearing, he finds fault with it too, claiming the court failed to provide visual-aid equipment in the 

 1

 At no point, either before or after the circuit court’s ruling, did Sudduth seek leave to 

amend his petition for appeal. 
- 3 -

courtroom to accommodate his disability. We cannot decide the issue, however, because 

Sudduth did not provide a transcript of the hearing or a statement of facts either corroborating or 

disproving his assertion, see Rule 5A:8(b); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 506, 

508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992), and no order addressed Sudduth’s request for an 

accommodation for his visual disability. 

Given our ruling, we need not address the various alternative grounds offered on appeal 

for affirming the circuit court’s dismissal order.2 “In this case, as in all others, we seek to decide 

cases ‘on the best and narrowest ground available’ from the record.” Biddison v. Va. Marine 

Res. Comm’n, 54 Va. App. 521, 531, 680 S.E.2d 343, 348 (2009) (citation omitted). 

 Affirmed.

 2

 In the circuit court, DMAS argued that (i) Sudduth’s notice of appeal from the DMAS 

hearing officer’s decision failed to identify DMAS, an indispensable party, as an appellee and 

incorrectly identified Alexandria DHS as an appellee, and (ii) the notice of appeal to the circuit 

court did not comply with Rule 2A:2’s specificity requirements. DMAS added that, in any 

event, the administrative record amply supported the agency’s decision. Alexandria DHS also 

argued it had been improperly named as an appellee. Under VAPA, courts have no authority to 

review decisions made solely by municipal agencies. See Code § 2.2-4002(A)(5); Fauquier 

County v. Robinson, 20 Va. App. 142, 153, 455 S.E.2d 734, 739 (1995). 

We note that both of Sudduth’s notices of appeal to our Court identify the appellee as 

“City of Alexandria Department of Human Services,” a department of the City of Alexandria. 

See Alexandria Charter § 2-3-1(3). Neither notice of appeal identifies DMAS as an appellee. 

Cf. Ghameshlouy v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 47, 675 S.E.2d 854 (2009), appeal granted, 

No. 091120 (Va. Sept. 11, 2009); Roberson v. City of Virginia Beach, 53 Va. App. 666, 674 

S.E.2d 569 (2009), appeal granted, No. 091299 (Va. Sept. 11, 2009).