Opinion ID: 868525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DMH Grievance

Text: In September 2009, Appellant commenced a grievance proceeding pursuant to DMH regulations. See D.C. CODE § 7- 1231.12(a) (authorizing grievance regulations); D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 22-A, § 300.1 et seq. These regulations establish a multi-tiered, non-exclusive post-deprivation review process. Under applicable local law, an aggrieved party “may pursue other legal, administrative, or informal relief in lieu of or 4 concurrently with filing a grievance.” D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 22-A, § 304.3; accord D.C. CODE § 7-1231.12(c). Appellant initially pursued his grievance before the Chief Administrative Officer of the Hospital. After his grievance was denied, Appellant appealed to an external reviewer, who rendered a non-binding advisory opinion. See D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 22-A, § 308; accord D.C. CODE § 7-1231.12(b). In an opinion dated November 27, 2009, the external reviewer found that Appellant’s “grievance [had] merit” and recommended judicial review. Advisory Opinion of the External Review for Mr. Gregory English, Fair Case No. 09STEH-479, 10 (Nov. 27, 2009), reprinted in J.A. 89. DMH regulations require that, within ten days, the Director either ratify or reject the recommendations of the external reviewer in whole or in part. D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 22-A, § 308.6. The Director failed to meet this regulatory deadline.