Court Opinion

ID: 9538455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:36:44.694959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:53.535512
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (concurring). I concur. We do not have to proceed beyond the record to determine the error of the HSSD decision. To fumble with statutes, regulations, authorities, and complex issues results from inexperience in the trial and appeal of cases. HSSD should be knowledgeable of common sense procedures and not take advantage of persons on relief. At the conclusion of the July 7, 1977 hearing, the Hearing Officer said: Anyway, I have the discretion to authorize a complete or medical examination. I am not going to do it at this point, Mrs. Hillman, because your case will not in effect be closed until the final decision is made, but I am going to take this material to the Incapacity Review Unit, and I will be guided by their recommendation as to whether another exam should be authorized or whatever. I am not going to authorize it now, but your case will remain open until the final decision. On July 20, 1977, the hearing officer entered a “Fair Hearing Decision” in which she recommended that the appeal be upheld. This decision was not submitted to the Fair Hearing Review Committee nor to the HSSD Executive Director. On November 14, 1977, the Hearing Officer wrote to Hillman’s attorney: Based on the evidence presented at the hearing which took place on July 7, 1977 the appeal is hereby denied. The reason for this action is set forth on the attached summary sheet. [Emphasis added.] I do not know what “the attached summary sheet” is. In the record following the above letter is “Fair Hearing Decision,” dated October 28, 1977, in which the HSSD Executive Director, based upon the recommendation of the Hearing Officer and Fair Hearing Review Committee decided the case in favor of the Agency. In this “Fair Hearing Decision,” the “supplemental” conclusions of the Hearing Officer were that Ms. Hillman refused to undergo the examination recommended and authorized by IRU which would establish where she is now disabled. Because Ms. Hillman refuses to cooperate in the establishment of eligibility, presumptive ineligibility exists and termination of assistance by the County Office must now be-considered a correct action. It does not require judicial wisdom to conclude that the denial of' Ms. Hillman’s appeal was “Not” based on the evidence presented at the hearing which took place on July 7, 1977. Unfortunately, administrative agencies oftimes are not learned in “Fair Hearings” to arrived at “Fair Hearing Decisions.” The hearing of July 7, 1977 remained open until the Incapacity Review Unit made its recommendations. This hearing should have continued at a later date in which additional evidence would be presented on all material issues. Then a final decision could be rendered based upon the evidence. The hearing not having been concluded, the “Fair Hearing Decision” entered was premature, ineffective and void. In my opinion, the decision entered should be vacated and further evidence taken, after which, a final decision can be entered from which an appeal can be taken.