Court Opinion

ID: 9558979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:48.689732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:41.502821
License: Public Domain

CARPENETI, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the outcome of this case, but write separately to emphasize the unique factual circumstances in which it arises and the resulting limited nature of our holding.
Both Peltier, the CSED representative, and Howard, the hearing examiner, made express representations that they would take specific steps in response to Willis’s requests^ Peltier promised to submit a recommendation to Howard concerning Willis’s hardship request; Howard promised to make the hardship determination in the decision itself.
*590Neither Peltier nor Howard did what they promised. Peltier made no recommendation concerning Willis’s request for a hardship exemption. Howard was replaced by a new hearing examiner, whose decision made no mention of, much less a ruling on, the request for relief concerning arrears.
For these reasons, the normal rule that CSED need not explain a rejection of a hardship claim under Rule 90.3(c)(1) does not apply here. Having promised an explanation of its decision, CSED must provide one.