10 A.3d 127
D.C.2010Background
- Act defines mental retardation and mandates DDS habilitation for eligible District residents.
- Voluntary admission to a DDS facility requires a director to determine eligibility and age (14+).
- A.T. was denied DDA services based on not meeting diagnostic criteria for mental retardation.
- DDS issued three notices; final determination denied eligibility; A.T. could seek judicial review.
- Superior Court conducted a de novo proceeding to determine A.T.’s mental retardation status over DDS’s objection.
- Court vacated and remanded, but DC Court of Appeals held trial court erred by applying de novo review and affirmed DDS denial on record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to conduct de novo review | A.T. argues trial court could review agency decision de novo. | DDS argues court should defer to agency and review on record only. | Trial court exceeded authority; de novo review not permitted. |
| Standard of review for DDS denial | Record shows medical opinions support mental retardation. | DDS’s decision supported by substantial evidence in record. | DDS denial affirmed based on substantial evidence in administrative record. |
| Procedural adequacy of DDS process | DDS lacked transparent procedures for review. | DDS provided notices and opportunities to be heard; no procedural error. | No procedural error; meaningful opportunity to be heard satisfied. |
| Remediable scope of eligibility decision | A.T. should be found mentally retarded based on pre-18 criteria. | Agency appropriately used DSM-IV-TR and evidence in record. | Administrative record supports DDS’s ineligibility determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bicksler, 501 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1985) (limits on creating de novo authority; role after admission)
- Rones v. District of Columbia Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 500 A.2d 998 (D.C. 1985) (non-contested agency review; standard of review)
- Barry v. Wilson, 448 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1982) (review framework for agency actions in non-contested cases)
- Kegley v. District of Columbia, 440 A.2d 1013 (D.C. 1982) (restricts duplicative agency proceedings; record-based review)
- Felicity's, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals & Review, 851 A.2d 497 (D.C. 2004) (reasoned articulation of agency decision required)
- Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Empt, 859 A.2d 1058 (D.C. 2004) (substantial evidence standard and deferential review)