Blake v. Racine County Human Services Department
831 N.W.2d 439
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Blake was convicted in 1986 of misdemeanor welfare fraud under Wis. Stat. § 49.12(9) (1985-86), the equivalent of § 49.95(9) (2011-12).
- Her two unreported assets (a motorcycle and a car) led to welfare over-payments and she admitted she knew reporting was required.
- In 2010 the Department revoked Blake's child caregiver certification under a new law permanently barring individuals with certain convictions.
- The Department based the revocation on Blake's conviction labeling it as involving fraudulent activity in the Wisconsin Works program.
- A hearing examiner and the circuit court upheld the revocation, but the court of appeals remanded in light of Jamerson v. DCF, which requires clear evidence of fraudulent activity beyond the conviction's title.
- On review, the court applies Jamerson and Gehin to determine what evidence is needed to show fraudulent activity to justify revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Blake's conviction alone prove fraudulent activity? | Blake argues no; a conviction alone does not prove fraudulent activity under the new law. | Department argues the conviction may come within the new caregiver law if it reflects fraudulent activity. | Remanded; conviction title alone is insufficient; need clear evidence of fraudulent activity. |
| Is the criminal complaint admissible evidence to establish fraudulent activity? | Complaint should be considered to support fraudulent activity. | Complaint is admissible but must be corroborated; hearsay alone is insufficient. | Remanded; complaint may be admitted but cannot stand alone without corroboration. |
| Does reliance on the descriptive title 'fraud' suffice to revoke under § 48.685(5)(br)5)? | Title alone is insufficient; Jamerson requires more. | Title may indicate fraudulent activity; other evidence can corroborate. | Remanded; title alone cannot establish fraudulent activity. |
| What standard of review applies to the Department's determination under Jamerson and Gehin? | Sufficiency of evidence should be judged against the standard for administrative review with deference. | Due weight deference should guide the interpretation of the statute. | Apply due weight deference; uphold only if the interpretation is more reasonable; otherwise remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jamerson v. DCF, 345 Wis. 2d 205, 824 N.W.2d 822 (Wis. Supreme Court, 2013) (requires clear showing that conviction involved fraudulent activity under the caregiver statute)
- Brown v. DCF, 341 Wis. 2d 449, 819 N.W.2d 827 (Wis. 2d App., 2012) (admission of criminal complaint can be used but may be challenged as hearsay)
- Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2005) (administrative hearing evidentiary standards; corroboration required)
- State v. Temby, 108 Wis. 2d 521, 322 N.W.2d 522 (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1982) (recognizes relaxed evidentiary rules at administrative hearings)