Anthony D. Herron, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Human Services
W2016-01416-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 1, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2014 the Tennessee Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) found Anthony Herron eligible for vocational rehabilitation and adopted an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) to train him as a flight instructor; DRS agreed to pay tuition and related costs.
- Herron enrolled at Upper Limit Aviation in Nov. 2014. DRS requested releases to obtain progress reports; Herron refused to sign and instructed Upper Limit not to disclose progress to DRS.
- DRS suspended tuition payments pending receipt of progress reports. Herron continued training despite suspension. DRS resumed payment after receiving a March 4, 2015 progress report.
- Upper Limit ceased operations on April 1, 2015; Herron’s training stopped as a result.
- Herron administratively challenged DRS’s suspension of payments; the Division of Appeals and Hearings and the DHS Commissioner upheld DRS. Herron then sought judicial review in Shelby County Chancery Court, which affirmed; this appeal followed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding DRS’s suspension was authorized under regulations and Herron failed to prove substantive harm from DRS’s actions (Upper Limit’s closure caused the training failure).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRS could suspend tuition for failure to provide progress reports | Herron: IPE did not explicitly require progress reports, so suspension was unauthorized | DRS: Regulations require trainees to maintain progress and DRS may suspend/discontinue if progress cannot be verified; refusal to sign releases impeded oversight | Held: Suspension permissible under DRS regulations and IPE obligations; Herron’s refusal to authorize releases justified suspension |
| Whether procedural violations (if any) entitled Herron to relief under Rehabilitation Act | Herron: Procedural mishandling and failure to properly execute IPE harmed my rights | DRS: Any procedural issue did not cause substantive harm; relief requires proof of actual harm | Held: Procedural errors alone do not confer relief absent substantive harm; Herron failed to show harm caused by DRS |
| Whether agency decision was arbitrary/capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence | Herron: Agency’s actions were improper and unsupported | DRS: Decision rested on lack of progress documentation and applicable regulations; evidence supports decision | Held: Agency decision supported by substantial and material evidence and not arbitrary; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Publix Super Mkts. v. Tenn. Dep’t of Labor & Workforce Dev., 402 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (appellate review must apply substantial and material evidence standard to agency factual findings)
- County of Shelby v. Tompkins, 241 S.W.3d 500 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (agency statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- City of Memphis v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 239 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (appellate review limitations on substituting judgment for agency on factual issues)
- Bobbitt v. Shell, 115 S.W.3d 506 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (same principle on deference to agency factfindings)
- Diamond v. Mich., 431 F.3d 262 (6th Cir.) (procedural violations by rehabilitation agency do not warrant relief absent proof of substantive harm)