Court Opinion

ID: 9568164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:01:06.740152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:24.742229
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice,
dissenting.
Barnett had four different opportunities to present his claim of exemption to the department — at his initial application, following receipt of his BEST Non-compliance Conciliation Notice, again following receipt of his BEST Advance Closing Notice, and yet again for several days following his receipt of the BEST Non-compliance Closure Notice. Despite all of that, Barnett waited until the last possible moment and then, without elaboration, simply said “I should be exempt from participating in the BEST program.”
The conciliation process provided by the department clearly afforded Barnett all the due process and fair hearing opportunity required by Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). I would affirm.