Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a petitioner appealing an order from the Adult and Family Services Division (AFSD) which denied her request for a hearing following the reduction of her Aid to Dependent Children grant. The reduction was due to non-compliance with the Jobs Program, specifically missed appointments with her caseworker. The petitioner delayed filing for a hearing, believing it unnecessary after discussions with her caseworker, but eventually filed outside the 30-day period as required by OAR 461-09-000(4). The hearings officer ruled that the late filing was not justified by good cause. Furthermore, the agency's order lacked the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law, as mandated by ORS 183.470, making it insufficient for judicial review under ORS 183.482. The court reversed AFSD's decision and remanded the case, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence and documentation in agency actions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Requirements for Agency Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The agency's order reducing the aid grant was found deficient because it lacked the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law, thus failing to meet the statutory requirements for adequate judicial review.
Reasoning: The officer also noted that the agency's order regarding the reduction lacked appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required under ORS 183.470, rendering it inadequate for judicial review under ORS 183.482.
Right to Administrative Hearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner sought a hearing to contest the reduction of her aid grant but was denied due to a late filing. The applicable regulatory framework allows for late filings to be excused given good cause, which the petitioner failed to establish.
Reasoning: The hearings officer acknowledged that while late filings could be excused for good cause, he did not find her reasons sufficient.