Opinion
A20-0704
03-29-2021
In the Matter of the Appeal by Naomi Campbell of the Order of Denial of her Application for a Child Care Foster License.
ORDER OPINION
Minnesota Department of Human Services File No. 36029 Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2017, pro se relator Naomi Campbell applied for a child-foster-care license with Bethany Christian Services.
2. In 2018, relator applied for a child-foster-care license through respondent Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department.
3. In 2019, respondent Commissioner of Human Services ordered the denial of relator's applications for the following two reasons: (1) Campbell was disqualified under Minnesota Statutes chapter 245C (2020), the disqualification had not been set aside, and no variance was granted; and (2) Campbell withheld relevant information or provided false or misleading information in connection with her applications.
4. Relator appealed the orders of denial. An administrative law judge (ALJ) consolidated the appeals and held a hearing at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). At the hearing, the ALJ received Exhibits 1-15 from the Department of Human Services (DHS).
5. The ALJ recommended that the commissioner set aside relator's disqualifications and, as a result, rescind the orders denying relator's applications.
6. The commissioner affirmed the denial of relator's applications because relator "knowingly withheld relevant information or gave false or misleading information when she failed to disclose all information regarding other child foster care license applications, denied during a licensing application interview that she had previously applied for a child foster care license, and failed to provide complete information regarding her criminal history."
7. Relator requested reconsideration, and the commissioner denied the request. Relator then filed this certiorari appeal seeking review of the commissioner's orders.
9. DHS filed an itemized list of the contents of the record. Paragraph 11b of the itemized list includes an exhibit list attached to correspondence from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office to the ALJ. The exhibit list mentions the 15 exhibits that DHS presented to the ALJ.
11. The commissioner subsequently filed a "motion for remand or alternatively to extend the time for briefing." The motion and attached exhibits indicate that the hearing record transmitted to the commissioner by the OAH was incomplete and did not include the 15 DHS exhibits listed in paragraph 11b of the itemized list. The commissioner requests that this court "remand this matter . . . so that the [c]ommissioner may issue any new or modified findings of facts and conclusions based on the entire record, including all evidence received at OAH." The commissioner argues that a remand is necessary because she did not receive Exhibits 1-15 until after issuing the order affirming the denial of relator's application and the order denying relator's request for reconsideration.
12. The commissioner next served and filed a brief requesting that this court affirm the commissioner's decision. This court ordered DHS to file a supplemental record containing the DHS exhibits and indicating whether the commissioner is still seeking a remand. In response to that order, the commissioner filed correspondence stating that she is still seeking a remand. Thereafter, this court received the amended electronic record containing the DHS exhibits.
13. Minnesota Statutes section 14.69 governs the scope of judicial review for contested cases under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA). Section 14.69 states:
[T]he court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the administrative finding, inferences, conclusion, or decisions are:Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2020).
(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or
(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or
(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or
(d) affected by other error of law; or
(e) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious.
14. MAPA requires that "[a]ll evidence, including records and documents containing information classified by law as not public, . . . which is offered into evidence by a party to a contested case proceeding, shall be made a part of the hearing record of the case." Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 2 (2020). Because DHS offered Exhibits 1-15 into evidence, and the ALJ received the exhibits, they are part of the record.
15. MAPA also requires that "[e]very decision and order rendered by an agency in a contested case shall be in writing, shall be based on the record and shall include the agency's findings of fact and conclusions on all material issues." Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2020) (emphasis added). Because Exhibits 1-15 are part of the record and the commissioner did not receive the exhibits until after issuing the orders, the commissioner's orders are not based on the record.
16. "Remand is appropriate to permit further evidence to be taken or additional findings to be made in accordance with the applicable law." In re A.D., 883 N.W.2d 251, 258 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted). Remand is also appropriate when "the commissioner acted contrary to law" by not considering evidence presented during a contested-case hearing. Sleepy Eye Care Ctr. v. Comm'r of Human Servs., 572 N.W.2d 766, 771 (Minn. App. 1998).
17. Because the commissioner acted contrary to law by not considering the entire record when she issued her orders, we remand this case to the commissioner to make findings in accordance with the applicable law. On remand, the commissioner is directed to base her decision on the entire record as it existed during the contested-case proceeding.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This matter is remanded for further proceedings.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: March 29, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan