From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Phillips v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Feb 2, 1993
Record No. 0414-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)

Opinion

Record No. 0414-92-2

February 2, 1993

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY JAMES E. KULP, JUDGE

(Cherie Phillips, pro se, on brief).

(Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General; Roger L. Chaffe, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Barbara J. Gaden, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Barrow, Moon and Bray


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.


Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that the appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27.

Cherie Phillips appeals a circuit court order granting the demurrer of the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). Phillips had filed a bill of complaint challenging the manner in which her applications for food stamps and general relief funds were handled by VDSS. She asked the court to award her food stamps and funds retroactive to the date of her original application. She also asked that the court order VDSS to make several entries into its official record so that the record would comport with Phillips' view of the events in her case. She requested that her current eligibility worker be removed from the case and a new one be assigned, and that VDSS pay the costs of the action. The judge granted the demurrer, observing that the local agency had awarded Phillips food stamps retroactive to her initial application, and ruled that she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding the general relief funds.

The response by the Commonwealth of Virginia is entitled a demurrer and states that "the bill of complaint fails to state a cause of action, and fails to state facts upon which the relief demanded can be granted." Furthermore, the order of the trial court dismissing the proceeding speaks of granting the demurrer. However, the Commonwealth's response asserts a basis for disposing of the proceeding on its merits as an administrative appeal and because it is moot. Also, the trial court's order reflects that it was disposed of on this basis. Therefore, we construe the trial court's decision as a disposition on its merits, not simply a granting of a demurrer.

On appeal, Phillips asserts that (1) VDSS processed her application and appeal with willfulness, fraud, negligence, discrimination, and in violation of its own procedures; (2) VDSS's demurrer did not address the issues set forth in her bill of complaint; (3) the transcript of the administrative hearing should be part of the court record; (4) VDSS should document its decision, so that her claim that relief was granted could be substantiated; and (5) the denial of general relief funds was appealed and so is not barred. VDSS responds that Phillips' complaints about food stamps are moot as she received retroactive relief at her full entitlement amount, and that her failure to seek administrative review of the denial of general relief precludes court review of that decision.

Under the Virginia Administrative Process Act (VAPA), Code §§ 9-6.14:1 through 9-6.14:25, the burden is on the party complaining of agency action to demonstrate an error of law subject to review. Code § 9-6.14:17; Johnston-Willis v. Kenley, 6 Va. App. 231, 241, 369 S.E.2d 1, 6 (1988). The court will review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the agency's action, with due consideration of "the presumption of official regularity, the experience and specialized competence of the agency, and the purposes of the basic law under which the agency has acted." Code § 9-6.14:17. See Bio-Medical Applications of Arlington, Inc. v. Kenley, 4 Va. App. 414, 427, 358 S.E.2d 722, 727 (1987). Code § 9-6.14:16(B) directs that review of denial of general relief or food stamps "shall be based solely upon the agency record, and the court shall be limited to ascertaining whether there was evidence in the agency record to support the case decision of the agency acting as the trier of fact."

In this case, the local agency reconsidered Phillips' food stamp application and granted her request. Therefore, she has no grounds for complaint. As to general relief, the agency record supports the claim of VDSS that Phillips was denied relief because she had not submitted a medical form, and that the document denying relief informed her of her right to further pursue the claim either by conference with a named worker or by asking for a hearing before the VDSS. As she did neither, the court properly dismissed this aspect of the case. The other issues Phillips raises on appeal do not entitle her to relief under the VAPA. See Code § 9-6.14:16(B).

For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Phillips v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Virginia
Feb 2, 1993
Record No. 0414-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)
Case details for

Phillips v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:CHERIE PHILLIPS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Court:Court of Appeals of Virginia

Date published: Feb 2, 1993

Citations

Record No. 0414-92-2 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 1993)