Opinion ID: 391781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Due Process Precedents

Text: 40 To date, the Supreme Court has never expressly approved as meeting due process hearing requirements a procedure in which a claimant has been finally deprived of the right to government benefits without affording that individual an opportunity to appeal personally and orally to the decisionmaker. On the other hand, it must be recognized that claimants have been denied through suspensions the value of the use of such benefits for varying periods of time pending a final decision without opportunity for oral exchange. In this way the Court has in effect permitted a decision to be made without an oral hearing as to which party should pay the costs of delay inherent in the decision-making process. 41 In Londoner v. City of Denver, 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103 (1908), for example, the Court explicitly rejected the proposition that an opportunity to submit written comments satisfied the due process requirement of a hearing before tax assessments were finalized as to individual property owners. More recently in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), 27 the Court disapproved as inadequate due process a paper review prior to suspension of welfare benefits pending a full evidentiary hearing on the merits of their permanent termination. The Court pointed out some of the underlying practical reasons for insisting on oral process: 42 Written submissions are an unrealistic option for most recipients, who lack the educational attainment necessary to write effectively and who cannot obtain professional assistance. Moreover, written submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decision maker appears to regard as important. 43 Id. at 269, 90 S.Ct. at 1021. 44 Nonetheless, the Eldridge Court in ruling out the necessity for an oral hearing prior to suspension of disability benefits acknowledged that at least in some situations, written hearing procedures can be structured to overcome the problems set out in Goldberg. See 424 U.S. at 345-46, 96 S.Ct. at 907-908. At the same time, the Eldridge Court did not exclude the possibility that in some situations, or without the presence of compensating safeguards, an oral hearing might be a due process requirement. 45 Moreover, in several recent decisions discussing hearing rights in an adjudicatory proceeding, the Court found that circumstances warranted some type of oral hearing. For example, Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978), involved a challenge to a municipal utility's procedure for terminating service for non-payment of bills. The Court held that the hearing mandated by due process required, at a minimum, an opportunity for a meeting with a responsible employee empowered to resolve the dispute. Id. at 18, 98 S.Ct. at 1565. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976), required that before suspending a student for alleged misconduct, the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. Id. at 581, 95 S.Ct. at 740. The Court emphasized that no elaborate, formal procedure was required: In the great majority of cases the disciplinarian may informally discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred. Id. at 582, 95 S.Ct. at 740. 46 Very recently, in Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979), the Court refused to conclude that a formal, adversary hearing was required in order to institutionalize a child for mental health care but nevertheless held that there must be a personal interview with the child. 47 (S)ome kind of inquiry should be made by a neutral factfinder to determine whether the statutory requirements for admission are satisfied. That inquiry must carefully probe the child's background using all available sources, including, but not limited to, parents, schools, and other social agencies. Of course, the review must also include an interview with the child. It is necessary that the decisionmaker have the authority to refuse to admit any child who does not satisfy the medical standards for admission. 48 Id. at 606-08, 99 S.Ct. at 2506 (citations omitted; emphasis supplied). 49 Parham was followed by Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979), in which Social Security recipients challenged the Secretary's reliance upon non-oral hearing procedures prior to undertaking recoupment measures (consisting of reductions in future benefits) for past overpayments of Social Security and disability benefits. Full evidentiary hearings were available only after the recoupment measures were instituted. The relevant statute, § 204(b) of the Social Security Act, commanded that: 50 there shall be no adjustment of payments to, or recovery by the United States from, any person who is without fault if such adjustment or recovery would defeat the purpose of this subchapter or would be against equity and good conscience. 51 The Secretary provided written review procedures both for initial adverse overpayment and recoupment decisions. Though the Court upheld the paper review of the overpayment decisions, describing them as relatively straightforward matters of computation ... based on earnings reports (the claimants) themselves submitted, 442 U.S. at 696, 99 S.Ct. at 2555, the Court pointed out that written review hardly seems sufficient to discharge the Secretary's statutory duty to make an accurate determination of waiver under § 204(b) ... (because it) '... is inherently subject to factual determination and adversarial input.'  Id. at 696, 99 S.Ct. at 2555 (citation omitted). 52 The list could go on; as we pointed out above, the Supreme Court has thus far not expressly upheld 28 any process finally disposing of a liberty or property claim 29 that provided no opportunity for an oral personal exchange at any point in the process. Many cases require far more, 30 some permit the hearing to be postponed in favor of prompt administrative action, 31 but in each case it was provided at some point.