The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
PENOBSCOT, ss. CIVIL ACTION
Docket No. AP-05-010
fi .',.;/ i 7 . : ;/ ;c / ,s,ics
DINA STARKS, )
1
Petitioner 1
1
1 OPINION: ORDER ON RULE 80C
1 APPEAL
STATE OF MAINE, 'r
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES,
Respondent
-\-.-.
This matter is before the Court on appeal pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. $911001-11008
(2004) and Rule 80C of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure from a decision of the
Respondents, Maine Department of Health and Human Services' (herein "Department")
%- - - - .-- Final Decisiolt which held that the Department was correct when it ~ e w u p e dGeneral- - ..-.
Assistance benefits paid to Ms. Starks (herein "Petitioner").
DISCUSSrON
A. Standard of Review
The Court's review of the Respondents' determination is limited. Agency rulings
may be reversed or modified on appeal only if the Court determines that they are: (I) in
violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, (2) in excess of the statutory authority
of the agency, (3) made upon unlawful procedure, (4) affected by bias or error of law, (5)
unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record or (6) arbitrary or capricious or
characterized by abuse of discretion. 5 M.R.S.A $ 11007(4)(C) (2004).
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support the resulting conclusion." Lewiston Daily Sun v.
Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 1999 ME 90,g 7,733 A.2d 344,346. The Court
may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency merely because the evidence could
give rise to more than one result. Dodd v. Sec'y of State, 526 A.2d 583, 584 (Me. 1987).
"The burden of proof clearly rests with the party seeking to overturn the decision of an
administrative agency." Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Comm'n.,
450 A.2d 475,479 (Me. 1982). In cases where conflicting evidence is presented, the Law
Court has repeatedly held that such conflicts are for the fact-finder to resolve. Bean v.
Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 485 A.2d 630.634 (Me. 1984). The remedy
available to the court when the record is insufficient for judicial review is a remand to the
agency for further findings or conclusions. 5 M.R.S.A. 3 11007(4)(B). See also Gashgai
v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 390 A.2d 1080, 1085 (Me. 1978). Finally, when
. - -- . -- ,ruling on an agency interpretation-of astatute administered by it, thisCourtwil1 give . -.
great deference the agency's interpretation of the statute, unless the statute "plainly
compels a contrary result." Berry v . Board of Trustees, 663 A.2d 14, 16 (Me. 1995).
B. Applicable Law.
It is well-established that after spending General Assistance (GA) money to
support an individual, the supporting municipality, or the State, may seek reimbursement
of GA funds spent. 22 M.R.S.A. 4319(3); Me. Dep't of Health & Hum. Serv., 10-144
CMR 323-V (Interim Assistance). The State may recoup from a Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) payment but not from a Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)
payment. Despite Petitioner's argument that her benefits should have been deemed
SSDI payments, the record indicates that these benefits were SSI payments.
It is undisputed that Petitioner received GA from the City of Bangor from January
1,2003 through September 30, 2004. It is undisputed that Petitioner signed required GA
authorizations, agreeing that if she were subsequently found eligible for SSI, the State
could recoup GA dollars expended on her behalf. It is undisputed that on or about
September 21, 2004, Petitioner was found eligible, by SSA, for a retroactive SSI payment
of $1 1,700.00, with an effective date of eligibility of December 23,2004. Of that
amount, $8,889.66 was equal to the funds spent by the GA program for her support from
January 1, 2004 to September 30, 2004. Pursuant to the signed authorization and State
law and regulations, the State recouped $6,700.86 of the funds spent for Petitioner's
support, and the City of Bangor received $2,145.80. Petitioner received the balance of
$2,853.54.
- . -- - . * . .TkWearing Officer based his f indings upon competent and substantial evide- - - -
in the record, and did not abuse his discretion. As such, the Final Decision to uphold the
Hearing Officer's determination is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms the Department's Final Decision.
Accordingly, the entry shall be:
The Respondent's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk may incorporate this
Decision and Order into the docket by reference.
Dated: 0&1 1 8 ,2005
I Date Filed 4/28/05 PENOBSCOT Docket No. AP-2005-10
County
Action RULE 80C APPEAL
ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ANDREW K. MEAD
DINA STARKS "s. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
DINA STARKS, P r o s e OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
1 9 5 MAIN ST., APT 1 2 6 STATE HOUSE STATION
ORONO ME 0 4 4 7 3 AUGUSTA ME 0 4 3 3 3 - 0 0 0 6
BY: MARGARET SEMPLE, AAG
I