Akel v. New Mexico Human Services Department

6 Citing cases

  1. Sanchez v. Zanio's Foods, Inc.

    138 N.M. 555 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that "WCJ clarity and expressed reasoning is essential to our effective and meaningful review"

    WCJ clarity and expressed reasoning is essential to our effective and meaningful review. Cf. Atlixco Coalition v. Maggiore, 1998-NMCA-134, ¶¶ 17, 19, 125 N.M. 786, 965 P.2d 370 (requiring a statement of reasons for adjudicative action taken by administrative agency, one purpose of which is to allow for meaningful judicial review); Akel v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 743, 749 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Ct.App. 1987) (stating that for adequate appellate review "the hearing officer's decision [must] adequately reflect the basis for [the] determination and the reasoning used in arriving at such determination"); see also NMSA 1978, § 39-3-1.1(B)(1) (1999) (reflecting our Legislature's view that administrative agencies should provide written factual and legal bases for their orders in their decisions); NMSA 1978, § 74-9-27(B)(1) (1990) (same); NMSA 1978, § 74-9-29(B)(1) (1990) (same).

  2. Gila Resources v. N.M. Water Control Com'n

    138 N.M. 625 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that an agency action is arbitrary or capricious “if it is unreasonable or without a rational basis, when viewed in light of the whole record.”

    See Fasken v. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 87 N.M. 292, 294, 532 P.2d 588, 590 (1975) (determining disclosure by agency of its reasoning in reaching its ultimate findings to be utterly lacking and stating: "We do not have the vaguest notion of how the [agency] reasoned its way to its ultimate findings. We have only the theories stated in argument of counsel which we are ill-equipped to gauge."); Atlixco Coalition, 1998-NMCA-134, ¶ 17, 125 N.M. 786, 965 P.2d 370 (stating that "one of the purposes of requiring a statement of reasons is to allow for meaningful judicial review"); Akel v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 743, 749 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Ct.App. 1987) (stating that for adequate appellate review "the hearing officer's decision [must] adequately reflect the basis for [the] determination and the reasoning used in arriving at such determination"). {34} Further, because our review is of an administrative, rather than a judicial, decision, we will take care not to inappropriately tread on the executive branch's functions by looking for a factual or legal basis to support an agency's decision that is not stated by the agency as the underlying reason for its decision.

  3. Atlixco Coalition v. Maggiore

    125 N.M. 786 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that administrative action standard of review required agency to provide a "rational connection between the facts found and the choices made"

    Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring a statement of reasons is to allow for meaningful judicial review. See Green v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 107 N.M. 628, 631, 762 P.2d 915, 918 (Ct.App. 1988) (compliance with statute requiring agency to state reasons for its decision is "necessary for meaningful appellate review"); Akel v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 743, 749 P.2d 1120, 1122 (Ct. App. 1987) (requiring agency's decision to "adequately reflect the basis for [its] determination and the reasoning used in arriving at such determination . . . so that this court may adequately perform its appellate review."). {18} Southwest and the Department attempt to distinguish Green andAkel on the grounds that Akel did not involve an agency's departure from a hearing officer's recommendations and Green involved a total failure to explain how the agency was treating the hearing officer's recommendations rather than just a failure to explain why the agency was rejecting such recommendations.

  4. Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque

    116 N.M. 640 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    Finding will be set aside if reviewing court cannot conscientiously say that the evidence supporting the finding is substantial under whole record standard of review

    While a judge is not bound to accept the testimony of the experts and can properly determine the extent of a claimant's disability based on other competent evidence, Romo v. Raton Coca Cola Co., 96 N.M. 765, 767, 635 P.2d 320, 322 (Ct.App. 1981), here, there was no other competent evidence indicating that the range of Claimant's disability was less than 51%. See Akel v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 742-43, 749 P.2d 1120, 1121-23 (Ct.App. 1987) (evidence that claimant had previously worked despite disability and that claimant could work at 55% of a normal person's capacity in sheltered environment did not support conclusion that claimant was not disabled at the time she applied for general assistance benefits), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 74, 752 P.2d 789 (1988). For the reasons discussed above, we think it is clear that the Judge erred in adopting his finding that Claimant was only 38% permanently partially disabled, and the other evidence relied upon by the City was insufficient to support the finding on this issue.

  5. Kegel v. State

    113 N.M. 646 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a trust, formally created by a beneficiary's conservator, was not an MQT because the settlement checks funding the trust were made out to the conservator and the beneficiary's parents (who were also plaintiffs) in their individual capacities

    When engaging in this review we look to the whole record to determine whether the Department's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Akel v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 749 P.2d 1120 (Ct.App. 1987). We hold that it is not.

  6. Green v. N.M. Human Services Dept

    107 N.M. 628 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that estoppel normally requires showing of conduct amounting to false representation as concealing of facts, knowledge or constructive knowledge of true facts, and an expectation or intent that the other party will rely and act on the representations made

    Decisions of an administrative officer must adequately reflect the basis for his or her determination and the reasoning used in arriving at such determination. Cf. Akel v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 106 N.M. 741, 749 P.2d 1120 (Ct.App. 1987) (non-attorney hearing officer required to issue decision adequately reflecting basis for determination and reasoning used). For the above reasons, the fair hearing decision is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.