Bedoe v. County of San Diego, 215 Cal. App. 4th 56

IHSS program enables the aged, blind or disabled poor to remain in their homes with supportive services.
Nancy Bedoe was found eligible and chose her son Michael Bedoe as her IHSS provider in 2007.
In 2010 the County sought repayment of $29,560 for payments to Michael from 2007–2009 on the ground he did not perform services.
Michael admitted he received IHSS payments March 2007–August 2009 but did not personally provide services; his sister Julie provided them instead.
Julie provided services and Nancy/Julie mailed timesheets to Michael, who completed and signed them, depositing funds into Nancy’s account and keeping small amounts.
IHSS rules prohibit subcontracting of services; the hearing officer sustained an overpayment based on Michael’s unsupported timesheets and payments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did an overpayment occur where Michael was paid for hours not worked?	Bedoe: overpayment since Michael did not provide services yet claimed payment.	Bedoe: subcontracting to Julie could avoid overpayment since services were performed by another.	Overpayment occurred; subcontracting not allowed.
Does the Program Guide authorize subcontracting or merely illustrate fraud scenarios?	Bedoe: subcontracting would be permitted under Guide language.	Bedoe: Guide only provides examples for possible prosecution, not a defense.	Guide does not authorize subcontracting; it describes potential fraud scenarios.
Is the finding of overpayment supported by substantial evidence?	Bedoe: evidence shows payments were for non-provided services.	Bedoe: lack of direct personal service by Michael could be explained by subcontracting.	Substantial evidence supports overpayment.

Donley v. Davi, 180 Cal.App.4th 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (substantial evidence standard of review for agency decisions)
Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal.App.3d 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (administrative regulations—relationship to statutes)