Deoide Lea Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs, 73713-9

Background

Cunningham, a Developmental Disabilities Administration client, received written notice on March 4, 2013 that her services were terminated effective April 1, 2013; notice said an appeal filed by March 31, 2013 was required to continue benefits pending appeal.
Cunningham (through Karl Olson) faxed a notice of appeal on March 7, 2013 but it was misfiled in another case; she faxed again on June 3, 2013. An administrative hearing was set for May 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
Neither Cunningham nor Olson appeared at the May 20 hearing; the administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the appeal and later denied Cunningham’s motion to vacate for lack of good cause after finding submitted medical letters unreliable.
The ALJ previously denied continued benefits in a January 9, 2014 order, finding Cunningham had not timely filed; Cunningham did not specifically appeal that order to the board, and a review judge adopted the ALJ’s good-cause finding.
The Court of Appeals determined the ALJ’s factual finding that Cunningham was not entitled to continued benefits (based on untimely filing) was clearly erroneous because the March 7 fax existed and had been misfiled; the court remanded for further fact-finding on continued benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cunningham entitled to continued benefits pending appeal?	Cunningham argued she timely filed (faxed March 7) and thus should have continued benefits.	DSHS argued Cunningham did not timely file and was not entitled to continued benefits.	Court: ALJ finding was clearly erroneous (misfiled March 7 fax). Remand for further fact-finding on continued benefits.
Did Cunningham show good cause to vacate dismissal for failing to appear?	Cunningham argued medical reasons and submitted letters from providers and counselors showing inability to attend and need for representative.	DSHS argued the medical letters lacked personal knowledge and were unreliable; hearing absence unexplained.	Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ and review judge that Cunningham did not establish good cause; denial of vacatur affirmed.
Did the agency improperly withhold or omit evidence (due process claim)?	Cunningham claimed the ALJ or agency "concealed/destroyed" the March 7 notice and other documents, violating due process.	DSHS denied improper withholding; misfiling occurred but no intentional concealment affecting the record.	Court: No basis for claim of concealment as alleged; remand limited to fact-finding about continued benefits due to misfiling, not a due-process reversal.
Were additional counselor letters considered by the review judge?	Cunningham contended review judge failed to consider two counselor letters supporting inability to appear.	DSHS noted those letters were not shown to have been in the agency record before the ALJ.	Court: Cunningham failed to show those letters were before the ALJ; review judge’s omission not reversible error.

Key Cases Cited

Brighton v. Dep't of Transp., 109 Wn. App. 855 (2001) (standard of review and burden on party challenging agency action)
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd., 151 Wn.2d 568 (2004) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing agency factual findings)
Tapper v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 122 Wn.2d 397 (1993) (weight given to review judge findings that modify ALJ findings)