While we cannot disagree with the validity of appellant's observations concerning family relationships, we also cannot say that the reality of those observations renders the statute unconstitutional. Thus, applying the rational basis standard, we find no viable equal protection claim, as the statutory scheme at issue is rationally related to the objective and legitimate goal of limiting recovery of benefits under these circumstances. While appellant and others similarly situated may legitimately argue that the standard is too restrictive, that is a matter for the political process and appropriate legislative reaction, rather than judicial expansion of the defined class of qualified claimants. In sum, while we sympathize with the appellant's dilemma, we cannot legislate. Nor can we declare the provision unconstitutional when such a declaration is unwarranted.
Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies.
We will not reverse an agency decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. The decisions of administrative agencies carry with them the presumption of reasonableness. See City of Newark v. Natural Resource Council, Dep't of Envtl. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.