 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Munoz v. Chandler2/21/2002
" as well as "many hours, months and years in time and energy by the courts, the Attorney General's staff, [DHS's] staff, and [the Muñozes'] time and money." The Muñozes suggest that their costs to challenge DHS's recoupment efforts exceeded the $294.00 DHS is seeking to collect from them and, therefore, any overpayment they must repay should be offset by the amount of costs they incurred.
Since this case involves a secondary administrative appeal governed by HRS chapter 91, however, the remedial relief that can be granted to the Muñozes by the circuit court or this court is limited. Specifically, HRS § 91-14 (1993) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(g) Upon review of the record the court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision and order if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
(4) Affected by other error of law; or
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to the above language, there is no authority vested in the hearing officer, the circuit court, or this court to award damages to the Muñozes for costs they incurred as a result of DHS's request to be repaid the amount the Muñozes had been overpaid in AFDC benefits. In accord: Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Campbell, 771 A.2d 1051, 1060 (Md. 2001) (holding that Md. Code (1984, 1999 Repl. Vol.) § 10-222, which is almost identical in language to HRS § 91-14(g), "empowers the reviewing court to remand the case for further proceedings, affirm the decision, or reverse or modify it; there is no provision for the reviewing court to award attorneys' fees").
Accordingly, the Muñozes are not entitled in this proceeding to be compensated for their costs in defending against DHS's efforts to recoup the $294.00 amount allegedly overpaid to them. On remand, therefore, the only issue before the AA shall be the amount of the overpayment, if any, that the Muñozes are required to repay to DHS.
On the briefs:
Connie B. Muñoz and Peter B. Muñoz, plaintiffs-appellants prose.
Lisa M. Itomura, Deputy Attorney General, State of Hawaii, for defendant-appellee.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|