2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 27 - Public Assistance › Article 3 - Public Assistance Appeals › Section 27-3-4 - Appeal.

Within thirty days after receiving written notice of the decision of the director pursuant to Section 27-3-3 NMSA 1978, an applicant or recipient may file a notice of appeal with the district court pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
History:
1953 Comp., § 13-18-4, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 256, § 4; 1998, ch. 55, § 37; 1999, ch. 265, § 39.
ANNOTATIONS
The 1999 amendment,
effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1".
The 1998 amendment,
effective September 1, 1998, rewrote this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
Time for filing notice of appeal.
— Because the requirement of the time for filing notice of an appeal from a decision of an administrative board or agency lies within the supreme court's rule-making authority, and because such timing is now covered by Rule 12-601A NMRA, requiring filing notice within 30 days of the decision appealed from, not this section, requiring filing notice within 30 days of receipt of written notice of the decision, governs.
James v. N.M. Human Serv. Dep't
, 1987-NMCA-105, 106 N.M. 318, 742 P.2d 530 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Review of administrative decisions where whole record considered.
— Because of the minor departure from the customary substantial evidence rule in reviewing administrative decisions where the record as a whole must be considered, the reviewing court may act on other convincing evidence in the record and may make its own findings based thereon.
N.M. Human Servs. Dep't v. Garcia
, 1980-NMSC-025, 94 N.M. 175, 608 P.2d 151 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
In reviewing an administrative decision, the courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.
N.M. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Tapia
, 1982-NMSC-033, 97 N.M. 632, 642 P.2d 1091 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
In order to determine whether a decision by the human services department [health care authority department] is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision by the human services department [health care authority department]; this does not permit accepting part of the evidence and totally disregarding other convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.
N.M. Human Servs. Dep't v. Garcia
, 1980-NMSC-025, 94 N.M. 175, 608 P.2d 151 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
The court of appeals does not reweigh the evidence
nor resolve any conflicts in evidence. If there is substantial evidence on which a reasonable mind would have made such a decision, the court should affirm the administrative officer's decision.
Montoya v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't
, 1989-NMCA-017, 108 N.M. 263, 771 P.2d 196 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Nonincome producing property not bar to benefits.
— When the evidence shows that the property cannot be utilized to produce income and a sale of the property would produce no income, the applicants for public assistance are eligible for benefits; therefore, the department's decision to deny aid to families with dependent children benefits has no support in the record.
Robnett v. N.M. Dep't of Human Servs. Income Support Div.
, 1979-NMCA-099, 93 N.M. 245, 599 P.2d 398 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Denial of benefits based upon substantial evidence.
— Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supported the human services department's [health care authority department's] denial of aid to families with dependent children benefits where the natural father could provide support.
N.M. Human Servs. Dep't v. Garcia
, 1980-NMSC-025, 94 N.M. 175, 608 P.2d 151 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Arbitrary and capricious action by administrative agency
is evident when it can be said that such action is unreasonable or does not have a rational basis and is the result of an unconsidered, willful and irrational choice of conduct, and not the result of a winnowing and sifting process.
Garcia v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't
, 1979-NMCA-071, 94 N.M. 178, 608 P.2d 154,
rev'd on other grounds
, 1980-NMSC-025, 94 N.M. 175, 608 P.2d 151 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Failure to give notice of reason for reduction in benefits.
— The action of the department in not giving notice to a recipient of the reason why her benefits were reduced invalidates the decision of the department.
Taylor v. Department of Human Servs.
, 1982-NMCA-107, 98 N.M. 314, 648 P.2d 353 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Failure of department to consider certain relevant medical evidence
found to be arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with law.
Saenz v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Servs.
, 1982-NMCA-159, 98 N.M. 805, 653 P.2d 181 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Correct decision reached for wrong reason not reversed.
— A correct decision of the department will not be reversed because the result was reached for the wrong reason where the court finds another valid basis for that result.
Melton v. N.M. Dep't of Human Servs.
, 1981-NMCA-130, 97 N.M. 102, 637 P.2d 52 (decided prior to 1999 amendment).
Law reviews.
— For article, "The Use of the Substantial Evidence Rule to Review Administrative Findings of Fact in New Mexico," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 103 (1979-80).
For article, "Substantial Evidence Reconsidered: The Post-Duke City Difficulties and Some Suggestions for Their Resolution," see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 525 (1988).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. —
79 Am. Jur. 2d Welfare Laws §§ 105 to 108.
Sufficiency of notice or hearing required prior to termination of welfare benefits, 47 A.L.R.3d 277.
81 C.J.S. Social Security and Public Welfare §§ 13, 26, 27, 62, 72.