In ____ v. Brock, Judge Schwall, Fulton County Superior Court), affirmed an administrative law judge’s Final Decision as supported by the administrative record. Here, the most interesting portion is the language discussing how a Superior Court reviews the appeal of an ALJ decision.
The case began when DHS found suspicious transactions on a food stamp card. It referred the matter to the Office of Inspector General. The result was that Petitioner was terminated from the program for one year and ordered to repay$1.988/26 in benefits (later reduced to $1,277.18). The food stamp recipient filed a petition for judicial review.
Initially, the Superior Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on the weight of evidence. O.C.G.A. § 50-13-19(h).
The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) 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 other error of law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Judicial review is confined to the administrative record. Questions of fact are subject to the “any evidence” standard, which means the Court must uphold the ALJ’s decision if there is any evidence in the record to support the agency’s findings.
As a practical matter, this means that even though the public benefits fair hearing is a de novo proceeding, it is the last opportunity to introduce evidence in the record. It also means that once the ALJ rules, the decision will not be reversed based on a factual dispute if anything in the record supports the decision below.
In this case, the appellant argued that the ALJ’s decision could not be supported because it was based on inadmissible hearsay. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, hearsay has no evidentiary value. See Wallace v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 247 Ga. App. 95 (2000). The State tendered, and the ALJ admitted, several exhibits containing statements of an investigator who did not testify. The ALJ admitted the records, while finding they would have carried a higher evidentiary weight if the agent had testified. The Court found that the records could be admitted under the public records exception and the residuary hearsay rule. For that reason they were not hearsay.
The appellant also argued that the agency did not present clear and convincing evidence. However, in reviewing whether the ALJ properly weighed the evidence, the clearly erroneous standard applies. The ALJ, in examining the evidence, found that the evidence weighed together made it highly probable that the appellant engaged in food stamp trafficking. The reviewing court will not re-weigh the evidence and under the clearly erroneous standard, the decision below was supported.
