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 fr om a decision of the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (D MAS), 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 S udduth’s petition for appeal to comply with Rule 2A:4(b). On this ground, we affirm. The Virginia Administrative Process Ac t (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). U nder Rule 2A:4(b), a petition for appeal

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - “shall” identify the case decision appealed, “speci fy 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 Al exandria Department of Human Services (Alexandria DHS) made “substantia l procedural errors” which de prived 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 Alex andria DHS’s findings of fact were “not based upon evidence in the record.” But the petiti on did not identify which findings of fact were unsupported by the record. Finally, the peti tion asserted that Alexandria DHS “misconstrued or misapplied law to the findi ngs of fact.” Yet, on ce again, the petition did not identify any particular “law” misc onstrued or misapplied by the agency. Sudduth’s indefinite allegations do not sati sfy Rule 2A:4(b)’s requirements that the petition for appeal “specify the errors” allege d and “state the reasons” why the agency’s case

decision violated the law. No reasonable r eading of the petition w ould place the agency on notice of the specific issues in controversy. Fo r this reason, the circu it 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 no t receive proper notice. We need not decide

whether the record belies Sudduth’s claim of in adequate notice because the court mooted the issue by granting his request to rehear the matte r. Though Sudduth attended the reconsideration hearing, he finds fault with it too, claiming the cour t failed to provide visual-aid equipment in the

1 At no point, either before or after the ci rcuit 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 tr anscript of the hearing or a statem ent 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 va rious 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 gro und 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 a ppeal from the DMAS hearing officer’s decision failed to identify DM AS, an indispensable party, as an appellee and incorrectly identified Alexandria DHS as an appelle e, and (ii) the notice of appeal to the circuit court did not comply with Rule 2A:2’s specif icity requirements. DMAS added that, in any event, the administrativ e record amply supported the agency’s decision. Alexandria DHS also argued it had been improperly named as an appell ee. 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 app eal 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 iden tifies 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).