Preview:

HEADNOTE:

Department of Human Resources, Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Angela Hayward and William Dixon, No. 131, September Term, 2007.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - REMEDIES - WRITS - COMMON LAW WRITS MANDAMUS In reviewing the discretionary acts of agencies, mandamus is proper where there is a lack of an available procedure for obtaining review and the action complained of is illegal, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

GOVERNMENTS - LEGISLATION - INTERPRETATION Where statutory language is unambiguous, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute to ascertain the Legislature's intent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - STANDARDS OF REVIEW SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE A court's review of an agency's decision is narrow. Such review is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's conclusions, and whether its decisions are premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - AGENCY RULEMAKING Administrative agencies have broad authority to promulgate regulations, but must exercise that authority consistent, and not in conflict, with the statute the regulations are intended to implement. Where an administrative regulation conflicts with a statute, the statute must control.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 131 September Term, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. ANGELA HAYWARD and WILLIAM DIXON

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Eldridge, John C. (Retired, Specially Assigned) Raker, Irma S. (Retired, Specially Assigned) Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J.

Filed: May 23, 2012

We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether an individual accused of, but not found responsible for, child abuse or neglect has a right to appeal1 when a local department's investigation of the accusation results in a finding of "unsubstantiated." The Court of Special Appeals answered this question in the affirmative, Hayward v. Dep't of Human Res., 177 Md. App. 402, 935 A.2d 493 (2007), and, so, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which had dismissed a mandamus action seeking that relief. We agree and, thus, affirm. I. Background At all times relevant to this appeal, the respondents, Angela Hayward, an instructional aide, and William Dixon, a teacher, were employed by the Baltimore City Public School System ("BCPSS"). In December, 2005, in separate cases, the petitioner,

Section 5-706.1, in subsections (b) and (c), provides for a review procedure, which it denominates an "appeal." This "appeal" as we shall see, infra, is an intra-agency procedure and does not refer to the judicial review of an administrative decision by a court. This Court has made clear that the "judicial review" process is not an appellate process, Shell Oil Co. v. Supervisor, 276 Md. 36, 43-47, 343 A.2d 521, 525-528 (1975) (because the Tax Court is an administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, "review of a Tax Court decision is an exercise of original and not appellate judicial jurisdiction"). See Kim v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 350 Md. 527; 534, 714 A.2d 176; 179 (1998) ("Although often misinterpreted to be an appeal, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that.an action for judicial review of an administrative decision is an original action. It is not an appeal."); Prince George's County v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 358 Md. 166, 174, 747 A. 2d 647, 651 (2000); Driggs Corp. v. Maryland Aviation, 348 Md. 389, 399, 704 A.2d 433, 438 (1998) ("As we have made clear, a petition for judicial review of an administrative order invokes the original, not the appellate, jurisdiction of the circuit court"); ;Motor Vehicle Administration v. Delawter, 403 Md. 243, 256-57, 941 A.2d 1067, 1076 (2008), Motor Vehicle Administration v. Shea, 415 Md. 1, 14-15, 997 A.2d 768, 775-76 (2010), Md. Aviation Admin. v. Noland, 386 Md. 556, 571-72, 873 A.2d 1145-55 (2005), Christopher v. Montgomery County HHS, 381 Md. 188, 197-99, 849 A.2d 46, 51-52 (2004). Being able to appeal pursuant to

Download Social Services v. Hayward & Dixon.pdf

Maryland Law