Opinion ID: 3033868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Right to an Administrative Hearing

Text: [12] Plaintiffs also contend that they have a federal right under 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a)(12) to individual hearings challenging the reduction of their adoption assistance payments.14 We agree. Section 671(a)(12) requires that an individual, whose claim for benefits is denied or not acted upon with reasonable promptness, be given an opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency. Applying the Blessing test discussed in the preceding section confirms that Congress intended to create a federal right to a fair hearing before a State agency, in that the text of the provision explicitly describes an objective individual and judicially reviewable right that is phrased in mandatory rather than precatory terms. See, e.g., Timmy S. v. Stumbo, 916 F.2d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that the Act grants foster parents an enforceable right to an administrative hearing). 14 Plaintiffs contend that right was violated when Oregon issued Or. Admin. R. 413-130-0125(4), which denied them access to a “contested case hearing.” 13158 ASW v. STATE OF OREGON Oregon counters that 45 C.F.R. § 205.10(a)(5), made applicable to Title IV-E through 45 C.F.R. § 1355.30, defines and restricts Plaintiffs’ right to a hearing. Specifically, § 205.10(a)(5) provides that a “hearing need not be granted when either State or Federal law requires automatic grant adjustments for classes of recipients unless the reason for an individual appeal is incorrect grant computation.” Yet, accepting as true the facts pled in their complaint, neither State nor Federal law required automatic grant adjustments, as none of the Plaintiffs were receiving adoption assistance payments in excess of the applicable cap after the uniform reduction in foster care payments. Oregon also argues that although Plaintiffs were denied an opportunity for a contested case hearing, they could have challenged the rule implementing the reduction through a rule hearing under Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.400.15 Section 183.400, however, restricts the scope of the available hearing and limits the possible remedies. In particular, rules are reviewed only for compliance with the statutory provisions authorizing the rule and the rulemaking procedures followed. See Beaver Creek Co-Op. Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 50 P.3d 1231, 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (explaining that while “numerous individual fact situations can arise under any rule . . . judicial review of the rule as applied to each of those situations is reserved to other forums,” i.e., “contested case” hearings). Moreover, monetary relief can only be sought through a contested case hearing, not a rule hearing. Burke v. Children’s Servs Div., 607 P.2d 141, 147-48 (Or. 1980). [13] We conclude that the right to a hearing under Or. Rev. Stat. § 183.400 does not meet the requirements of a § 671(a)(12) hearing. Section 671(a)(12) falls squarely within 15 Oregon’s Administrative Procedures Act provides for three distinct types of hearings: hearings to challenge a rule (§ 183.400), hearings in “contested cases” (§ 183.482) and hearings in “other than contested cases” (§ 193.484). ASW v. STATE OF OREGON 13159 the category of what Oregon defines as a “contested case” hearing as it invokes the application of a rule to a particular factual situation. Furthermore, as monetary relief is not available under a rule hearing, such a hearing does not satisfy the requirement for a “fair hearing” for “any individual whose claim for benefits” has been denied. Pursuant to § 671(a)(12), Plaintiffs have a right to an individualized fact-specific hearing to adjudicate their unique situation in which benefits were “denied or . . . not acted upon with reasonable promptness,” resulting in monetary relief where appropriate.