Opinion ID: 1965193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ex Parte Prohibition under the APA

Text: In affirming the trial justice's judgment, we pause to make clear precisely what the APA allows and prohibits in terms of ex parte communications during the administrative adjudication of contested cases. Section 42-35-1(3) (` Contested case ' means a proceeding    in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a specific party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing.). First, § 42-35-13 of the APA prohibits ex parte communication with anyone about contested or material adjudicatory facts or opinions concerning the merits of an applicant's pending appeal. The function of this requirement is to prevent litigious facts from reaching the decision-maker off the record in an administrative hearing. See Martone v. Lensink, 207 Conn. 296, 541 A.2d 488, 492 (1988) (stating that the purpose of the ex parte provision in the Connecticut APA is to preclude litigious facts reaching the deciding minds without getting into the record.) (quoting Model State Administrative Procedure Act, 15 U.L.A. § 13 at 426 comment (1981)). Administrative agencies retain broad enforcement discretion and, as always, considerable deference is accorded to such agencies about how to enforce regulations. See Pawtucket Power Associates v. City of Pawtucket, 622 A.2d 452, 456 (R.I.1993)([I]t is also a well-recognized doctrine of administrative law that deference will be accorded to an administrative agency when it interprets a statute whose administration and enforcement have been entrusted to the agency.); Narragansett Wire Co. v. Norberg, 118 R.I. 596, 607, 376 A.2d 1, 6 (1977) (Ordinarily    a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for factual determinations made by an administrative agency.). Second, § 42-35-13 authorizes hearing officers to engage in ex parte communication with agency staff members about general matters pertaining to the discharge of his or her duties. General matters would include private communications concerning procedure or timing. 1 Richard J. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise, § 8.4 at 544 (4th ed.2002). Third, in accordance with § 42-35-9(e) and § 42-35-10(4), the hearing officer must provide notice to the parties before a hearing if he or she intends to consult any documentary source or person concerning facts or opinions about the merits of an appeal. In addition, the parties must be afforded an opportunity to contest any such evidence and to cross-examine any people consulted. This is similar to the regulations followed by many federal agencies. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. § 16.17 at 79 (2006) (setting forth a regulation of the Department of Health and Human Services that states: [b]oard members and staff shall not consider any information outside the record    about matters involved in an appeal). Finally, all evidence that is received or considered must be on the record. This basic requirement, which facilitates judicial review, is consistent with current DHS regulations. [2] DHS Reg. § 0110.55.05 (The appeals officer will not review any information that is not made available to the individual or his/her authorized representative(s).); see also DHS Reg. § 0110.60.05 (The hearing responsibility cannot be considered discharged until    [a] decision based exclusively on evidence and other material introduced at the hearing has been rendered. (Emphasis added.)); see 6 Jacob A. Stein et al., Administrative Law Treatise, § 53.04[2] (2007). Thus, we read the order as follows. Unless the parties are given notice and an opportunity to respond on the record, including cross-examination, if appropriate, a DHS hearing officer may not communicate with anyone, including DHS staff members, about contested adjudicatory factsincluding, but not limited to, test results, specific diagnostic information, opinions concerning the severity of an applicant's medical conditions, or overall assessment of a client's disabilities or disability status. All facts and opinions, including opinions of agency professionals and staff, as well as information obtained from an outside source, such as medical texts or the Internet, must be included on the record if the hearing officer plans to base his final decision on such facts. In short, no litigious facts should reach the decision-maker off the record in an administrative hearing. However, a DHS hearing officer may communicate with agency staff members about hearing schedules, procedural matters, and general information about how hearings are conducted at DHS. Additionally, as long as a DHS hearing officer does not discuss the contested facts of a particular case, he or she may discuss general policy concerns about the agency's function and goals; he or she may attend staff meetings and may participate in casual discussions about agency policies. A hearing officer always is permitted to consult state and federal regulations and written policies. In other words, DHS hearing officers are required to guard against the inherent unfairness of secret evidence, but they are not required to isolate themselves from the agency.