The evidence partly overlapped, but this hearing required the Department to prove Moody's and Freeman's intent, an issue not relevant in the decertification proceeding. (See People v. Rodriguez (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 650, 654 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 79] ["the central issue before the Department of Social Services was whether Rodriguez' benefits should be terminated; the question of her fraud [pursued in a criminal case] was never directly raised"].) Moody's reliance on ALJ Hoover's comments at a prehearing conference, suggesting he thought the proceedings should have been consolidated so as to avoid "dragging this person through the same information and causing them to spend a lot of money to defend basically the same information," is unpersuasive, because ALJ Hoover was not purporting to adjudicate the issue of whether the later proceeding was barred by the former proceeding, nor did he have the power to do so.
(Italics added.) In People v. Rodriguez (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 650 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 79], the court found that the issue before the DSS hearing officer there was whether the defendant's benefits should be terminated, not whether the defendant had committed fraud. The court also concluded that the issue decided at the hearing was limited to whether the child's father was currently residing in the household, not whether he had been living there before the hearing.
In view of our conclusion, it is unnecessary to decide whether Sims applies retroactively. (See People v. Rodriguez (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 650, 655, fn. 1 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 79] .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .