From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitch v. Public Welfare Division

Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2, 1977
567 P.2d 117 (Or. 1977)

Opinion

CA 6459, SC 25195

Argued June 7, 1977

Petition dismissed as improvidently granted August 2, 1977

On review from the Court of Appeals.

Appeal from Public Welfare Division, State of Oregon. 27 Or. App. 799, 557 P.2d 253 (1976).

Gary Roberts, of Legal Aid Service, Multnomah Bar Association, Inc., Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Before Denecke, Chief Justice, and Tongue, Howell, Bryson, Lent, and Linde, Justices.


PER CURIAM.

Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.


Petitioner appealed from an order of the Public Welfare Division which suspended a portion of her ADC (Aid to Dependent Children) grant for a period of 90 days because she refused a job referral without good cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, deciding that the agency action was not contrary to certain provisions of the federal Social Security Act. We granted review because a serious question existed as to whether the Division failed to follow its own rules in suspending the benefits without offering counseling services for a 60-day period. OAR 461-5.427(1).

The Division now concedes that the state rule, OAR 461-5.427(1), was not followed in this case. Subsequent to the allowance of the petition for review, a question arose as to the validity of OAR 461-5.427(1) under ORS 411.116, which authorizes the Division only to "adopt rules consistent with federal * * * regulations * * *." The applicable federal regulation, 45 C.F.R. § 224.76(d), denies the benefits at issue to those of petitioner's status.

The Division suggests that the federal regulation exists solely to regulate the spending of federal money in federally sponsored programs. If so, a state rule granting benefits to be paid from state revenues might arguably be "consistent" with the purpose of the federal regulation. The record in this case, however, does not show if state money has been or will be spent or is available to administer OAR 461-5.427(1). Because of the lack of any evidence on this issue, we cannot decide the validity of OAR 461-5.427(1) in this proceeding. For this reason, we now view the petition as improvidently granted.

For other cases dismissing petitions as improvidently granted, see State ex rel Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Richardson, 267 Or. 374 (1973); State ex rel Kerns v. Read, 266 Or. 382 (1973). See also K. v. Health Division, 277 Or. 371, 376 (1977) (Denecke, C.J., specially concurring); Sahnow v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 260 Or. 564, 570 (1971) (Tongue, J., concurring); State v. McLean, 255 Or. 464, 482 (1970) (Denecke, J., specially concurring).

Petition dismissed as improvidently granted.


Summaries of

Fitch v. Public Welfare Division

Oregon Supreme Court
Aug 2, 1977
567 P.2d 117 (Or. 1977)
Case details for

Fitch v. Public Welfare Division

Case Details

Full title:FITCH, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC WELFARE DIVISION, Respondent

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Aug 2, 1977

Citations

567 P.2d 117 (Or. 1977)
567 P.2d 117

Citing Cases

State v. Beason

We have discovered that the record of this case makes it an inappropriate one to explore that aspect of the…

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Charles

In addition to the Court of Appeals' interpretation of that term, its decision rested on an independent…