# Franklin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · February 13, 1995 · 319 Ark. 468

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679981

## Case

- **Full name:** Manda FRANKLIN v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Economic & Medical Services, and Tom Dalton, in His Official Capacity
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 13, 1995
- **Citations:** 319 Ark. 468; 892 S.W.2d 262; 1995 Ark. LEXIS 752
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Corbin, Dudley, Newbern, Glaze, Brown
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679981

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- declining to review appellant’s arguments that she was denied due process and her right to a hearing under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-208 where such arguments were not made to the administrative tribunal

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. I agree with much of what is stated in Justice Newbern’s concurring opinion. The standard for determining eligibility for the Elder Choices program is elusive. We cannot determine what it is from the record, and it is clear that Ms. Franklin did not know what criteria were at issue at her hearing. Indeed, her emphasis for qualifying for the program was her legal blindness — not mobility, feeding, or toileting. DHS, on the other hand, decided eligibility based on the latter factors. Without knowing precisely what the standard is, it is difficult for me to decide whether it is vague or not.
Assuming a DHS standard does exist for eligibility in Elder Choices, Ms. Franklin should be apprised of that standard before any hearing and given the opportunity to meet the criteria. That clearly did not occur in this case at the first hearing.
Accordingly, I would reverse and remand to circuit court with directions that a new hearing be conducted. If no standard exists for determining eligibility or if the standard is impermissibly vague, then a conclusion that DHS is acting arbitrarily is inescapable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679981. Public record. Not legal advice.