Administra tive L a w in Wa shing to n: An I ntro duc tio n By - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Administra tive L a w in Wa shing to n: An I ntro duc tio n

By Jo sh Sundt, Jo hne tte Sulliva n, a nd T a risse I nje rd

Wha t is a dministra tive la w?

Why c re a te a n a g e nc y?

 T

he L e g isla ture pa sse s a la w:

• de le g a te s its la wma king a utho rity to a n a g e nc y
• to ma ke the rule s in a pa rtic ula r a re a

 Use d fo r a re a s tha t a re :

• te c hnic a l, spe c ia lize d, o r re q uire a la rg e

wo rkfo rc e to imple me nt

 Re lie ve s the :

• L

e g isla ture fro m de ta ile d rule ma king

• Go ve rno r fro m dire c t a dministra tio n
• Co urts fro m a hug e vo lume o f c a se s

Ho w do e s a n a g e nc y g e t its a utho rity?

 E

ve ry a g e nc y ha s a n e na b ling a c t

 Ag e nc ie s g e t the ir a utho rity fro m the

le g isla ture

 Use www.o a h.wa .g o v fo r sho rtc uts to

a c c e ss e a c h a g e nc y’ s rule s a nd the Administra tive Pro c e dure s Ac t

Tip

• a h.wa .g o v

Who ma ke s the la ws a nd re g ula tio ns?

 Whe n the L

e g isla ture ma ke s the la w it is c a lle d a …

• Sta tute

 And sta tute s a re fo und in the …

• RCW (Re vise d Co de o f Wa shing to n)

 I

f a g o ve rnme nt a g e nc y ma ke s the la w, thro ug h its de le g a te d a utho rity, it is c a lle d a …

• Rule (o r Re g ula tio n)

 And rule s g o in the …

• WAC (Wa shing to n Administra tive Co de )

Wha t is OAH?

 OAH is the Offic e o f Administra tive He a ring s  I

f a pe rso n disa g re e s with so me thing s do ne b y a sta te a g e nc y, the y ha ve the rig ht to a he a ring . Be fo re OAH wa s c re a te d, the he a ring wa s he ld b y a judg e fro m tha t sa me sta te a g e nc y.

 Whe n OAH wa s c re a te d, a ne w struc ture wa s se t

up with so me a g e nc ie s. T he a ppe a l he a ring s we re mo ve d a nd he ld b y a n inde pe nde nt judg e a t OAH.

 Ove r 20 sta te a nd lo c a l a g e nc ie s c o ve re d b y the

APA re fe r a ppe a ls to OAH

 Re a d mo re o n www.o a h.wa .g o v

Whe re is OAH’ s E na b ling Ac t?

 T

he e na b ling a c t

“A state o ffic e o f administrative he aring s is he re b y c re ate d. T he o ffic e shall b e inde pe nde nt o f state administrative ag e nc ie s and shall b e re spo nsib le fo r impartial administratio n o f administrative he aring s in ac c o rdanc e with the le g islative inte nt e xpre sse d b y this c hapte r.” RCW 34.12.010

 OAH he a ring s a re info rma l

He aring s shall b e c o nduc te d with the g re ate st de g re e o f info rmality c o nsiste nt with fairne ss and the nature o f the pro c e e ding . RCW 34.12.010

L a ws a nd Re g ula tio ns

• a h.wa .g ov

Administra tive He a ring s

 Adjudicative Proceeding =  Government agencies make thousands of

decisions that affect people’s lives. When you disagree with a decision that an agency has made, there is a good chance you have the right to appeal that decision. When you do, you will get an administrative hearing.

APA

Also c a lle d

Administrative Hearing

Administra tive He a ring vs. Co urtro o m

County Cour thouse

T ypic a l ima g e o f c o urtro o m

• Jurie s
• Judg e in ro b e s
• F

a nc y b uilding

• Witne ss b o x
• Ba iliff

Judg e Judy o r L a w & Orde r

Administr ative He ar ing

• No jury
• T

ypic a lly b y te le pho ne

• Whe n fa c e to fa c e
• I

nfo rma l c o nfe re nc e ro o m

• No ro b e s
• No g a ve ls
• No filing fe e to OAH

T he justic e syste m me a ns tra ditio na l c o urts to mo st pe o ple . Administra tive la w is la rg e ly invisib le in the pre ss a nd po pula r me dia .

Wa shing to n Sta te

 Ofte n a pe rso n’ s o nly c o nta c t with the

justic e syste m ma y b e with a n a dministra tive he a ring ra the r tha n the tra ditio na l c o urts

 I

n 2015, tra ditio na l c o urts c o nduc te d

10,654 tria ls.

 I

n the sa me time pe rio d, OAH c o mple te d a ro und 24,000 he a ring s

OAH He a ring Ag e nc y Ac tio n T a ke n Appe a l Appe a l to Hig he r Autho rity

Rig ht to Appe a l

 I

n a dministra tive la w, the rig ht to file a n a ppe a l c o me s fro m a n a g e nc y rule , a sta tute , o r b o th

 E

SD

• RCW 50.32.020

 L

CB

• WAC 314-55-510

Administra tive He a ring s in WA

 OAH

 Ce ntra l pa ne l – ho lds multiple type s o f he a ring s

 Othe rs inc lude :  BI

I A (wo rke rs c o mp)

 DOH (me dic a l pro vide r lic e nsing )  DOR (sta te ta x a ppe a ls)  E

L UHO (e nviro nme nta l he a ring s)

 PDC (c a mpa ig ns fo r pub lic o ffic e )  PE

RC (pub lic e mplo yme nt, unio n ma tte rs)

 BT

A (re vie w o f DOR de c isio ns)

 DOL

(DUI a nd F ina nc ia l Re spo nsib ility)

 DRS (pub lic e mplo ye e pe nsio n dispute s)  OI

C (insura nc e re g ula tio n)

Who Do e s

T ype s o f Ca se s OAH Ha ndle s (2016 T

• ta ls)

AL J Autho rity

 Ge ne ra lly limite d to de te rmining whe the r

the a g e nc y wa s rig ht o r wro ng whe n it issue d its de c isio n.

 T

he judg e c a nno t c ha ng e the a g e nc y’ s rule s.

 T

he judg e is limite d to wha t the la w a llo ws the m to do . T he re a re ve ry fe w c a se type s whe re the judg e ha s a utho rity to c re a te so lutio ns o r re me die s.

E vide nc e a nd He a ring Pro c e dure

 Judg e s will b e a c tive in the he a ring

• T

he y will a sk q ue stio ns

• T

he y ma y a sk fo r do c ume nts

 E

vide nc e usua lly c o nsists o f witne ss te stimo ny a nd writte n do c ume nts

 Judg e s de c ide the c re dib ility o f the e vide nc e

• F

irst ha nd re po rts a re mo re c re dib le

• T

he judg e ma y a llo w a se c o ndha nd re po rt o f wha t a no the r pe rso n sa id (he a rsa y)

 T

he we b site www.o a h.wa .g o v ha s a lo t o f info rma tio n a b o ut wha t to e xpe c t during the pro c e ss o f the he a ring

Burde n o f Pro o f

 I

n a he a ring , o ne pa rty ha s the re spo nsib ility to pre se nt e vide nc e a b o ut dispute d fa c ts

 A pa rty must pe rsua de the judg e tha t

the ir fa c ts (the ir po sitio n) is c o rre c t

 So me time s a fte r a pa rty pro ve s the ir

po sitio n (me t the b urde n), the b urde n o f pro o f shifts to the o the r side

• F
• r e xa mple , the b urde n ma y shift to pro ve a

de fe nse

Burde n o f Pro o f

 T

he judg e will le t yo u kno w who ha s the b urde n o f pro o f

 Une mplo yme nt I

nsura nc e e xa mple :

• I

f the e mplo ye r fire d the c la ima nt, the e mplo ye r ha s the b urde n to pro ve the e mplo ye e ’ s a c tio ns we re “misc o nduc t”

• I

f the c la ima nt q uit, the c la ima nt must pro ve the y ha d “g o o d c a use ” to q uit

 Child Suppo rt e xa mple :

• Bo th pa re nts ha ve a b urde n to pro ve the ir

inc o me (if the y disa g re e with the a mo unt DCS sho ws)

Sta nda rds o f E vide nc e

T he se a re the sta nda rds use d b y judg e s whe n de te rmining if so me o ne me t the ir b urde n o f pro o f

 Pre po nde ra nc e o f the E

vide nc e

• Applie s in mo st a dministra tive he a ring s
• “Mo re like ly tha n no t” sta nda rd
• “Mo re tha n 50%” sta nda rd

 Cle a r a nd Co nvinc ing

• Applie s in c e rta in c a se s like fra ud
• “Sub sta ntia lly mo re like ly tha n no t” sta nda rd

 Be yo nd a Re a so na b le Do ub t

• No t use d in a dministra tive he a ring s
• Use d in c rimina l c a se s

E x Pa rte Co mmunic a tio n

T he judg e usua lly do e s no t c o mmunic a te with o nly o ne pa rty.

 E

xc e ptio ns

• Whe n ne c e ssa ry fo r pro c e dura l a spe c ts o f ma inta ining a n o rde rly

pro c e ss

• E

xa mple : re q ue st fo r a c o ntinua nc e o r a c ha ng e o f lo c a tio n

• Whe n the c o mmunic a tio n is a utho rize d b y la w
• E

xa mple : re q ue st fo r a n ADA a c c o mmo da tio n

 Ca n a witne ss ta lk to the judg e a no nymo usly?

• No

 Ca n yo u write a le tte r with e vide nc e fo r the judg e ’ s e ye s o nly?

• No

E ve rything yo u se nd o r sa y to the judg e must b e sha re d with the

• the r pa rty

 RCW 34.05.455

Whe n do e s the a dministra tive he a ring pro c e ss e nd?

 I

nitia l Orde rs e nd the pro c e ss o nly if no o ne a ppe a ls

• T

he re is still a rig ht to a no the r a dministra tive a ppe a l

• I

f no o ne a ppe a ls, the I nitia l Orde r a uto ma tic a lly b e c o me s a F ina l Orde r

• I

f a n a ppe a l is file d, the pro c e ss e nds whe n the re vie w judg e issue s a F ina l Orde r

 F

ina l Orde rs e nd the a dministra tive pro c e ss

• An a g e nc y c a n de le g a te fina l de c isio n-ma king a utho rity

to the judg e s a t OAH

• An a g e nc y ma y ke e p the fina l de c isio n-ma king a utho rity
• Who e ve r ha s fina l de c isio n-ma king a utho rity will issue the

F ina l Orde r

 T

he ne xt ste p a fte r a F ina l Orde r is to the tra ditio na l c o urt syste m

Diffe re nt pa ths to g e t to the fina l a dministra tive o rde r

 F

ina l o rde r do ne b y OAH

• Child Suppo rt
• F
• o d Assista nc e

 F

ina l o rde r do ne b y Re fe rring Ag e nc y

• DSHS Bo a rd o f Appe a ls
• E

SD Co mmissio ne r’ s Re vie w Offic e

• L

iq uo r & Ca nna b is Bo a rd

I nitia l fina l

• rde r little g irl

OAH He a ring Appe a l to Hig he r Autho rity

T he n wha t?

 Onc e the fina l a dministra tive o rde r issue d,

pa rtie s ha ve a rig ht to a ppe a l thro ug h the tra ditio na l c o urt syste m:

• Supe rio r Co urt
• F

e de ra l Distric t Co urt

Ho w do I le a rn mo re ?

 Wa shing to n Administra tive Co de (WAC)  Re vise d Co de o f Wa shing to n (RCW)  OAH we b site

• Pre c e de ntia l a dministra tive de c isio ns

 Othe r a g e nc y we b site s  Wa shing to n L

a w He lp