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 Tip 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
o 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
oa h.wa .g ov L a ws a nd Re g ula tio ns
Administra tive He a ring s Adjudicative Proceeding = Administrative Hearing Also c a lle d APA 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.
Administra tive He a ring vs. Co urtro o m 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 . Administr ative He ar ing County Cour thouse • No jury T ypic a l ima g e o f c o urtro o m • • Jurie s T ypic a lly b y te le pho ne • • Whe n fa c e to fa c e Judg e in ro b e s • • F a nc y b uilding I nfo rma l c o nfe re nc e ro o m • • Witne ss b o x No ro b e s • • No g a ve ls Ba iliff • No filing fe e to OAH Judg e Judy o r L a w & Orde r
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
Ag e nc y Ac tio n T a ke n Appe a l OAH He a ring 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
Who Do e s 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)
T ype s o f Ca se s OAH Ha ndle s (2016 T o 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 o 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 o 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
Recommend
More recommend
