L.H. v. Dep't of Human Servs.
197 A.3d 310
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- In April 2016 Beaver County CYS completed investigations finding L.H. an indicated perpetrator for sexual abuse of E.K.; CYS sent L.H. a letter April 13, 2016 and ChildLine allegedly mailed an appealable notice (E.K. Notice) April 14, 2016 informing him of a 90-day appeal right.
- L.H. filed an appeal on March 9, 2017, 314 days after the alleged mailing; ChildLine rejected it as untimely and informed L.H. he could ask BHA to review the indicated finding within 90 days of its May 4, 2017 letter.
- ALJ held a September 7, 2017 hearing and recommended dismissal of the appeal as untimely; BHA adopted that recommendation on September 20, 2017.
- L.H. filed a motion for reconsideration that DHS received one day late; DHS nonetheless granted the motion, then later issued an order upholding BHA’s September 20, 2017 order; this Court found DHS lacked jurisdiction to grant the late motion and treated L.H.’s appeal as nunc pro tunc.
- Key factual dispute: whether the E.K. Notice was mailed/received. DHS invoked the mailbox rule to presume receipt; DHS did not introduce proof of mailing at the hearing. L.H. produced a different appealable notice (S.H. Notice) showing he appealed when he received such notices and submitted circumstantial evidence that he did not receive the E.K. Notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nunc pro tunc relief should be allowed for untimely appeal | L.H.: he never received the E.K. Notice; administrative breakdown; delay excused | DHS: mailbox rule presumes mailing and receipt; appeal untimely | Court allowed a nunc pro tunc appeal due to administrative breakdown caused by DHS's actions and lack of mailing proof |
| Whether mailbox rule can be applied to presume receipt of the E.K. Notice | L.H.: rebutted by circumstantial evidence (receipt of S.H. Notice and different letter formats) and absence of proof mailing occurred | DHS: proof of mailing presumptively establishes receipt | Court held mailbox rule did not apply because DHS failed to introduce evidence of mailing at the hearing, so no presumption of receipt arose |
| Whether L.H. had constructive notice from CYS April 13, 2016 letter to trigger timeliness | DHS/ALJ: April 13 letter put L.H. on notice and he delayed filing almost a year | L.H.: the April 13 letter was not an appealable notice and did not inform him of 90-day appeal right | Court held the April 13 letter lacked the content of an appealable notice and did not establish that L.H. had an opportunity to address the untimeliness |
| Whether DHS had jurisdiction to grant late reconsideration and effect on appeal timing | L.H.: DHS's grant created confusion but was without jurisdiction due to late filing | DHS: granted reconsideration despite untimeliness | Court held DHS lacked jurisdiction to grant the late motion; its grant was void, which supported treating the appeal as nunc pro tunc due to administrative breakdown |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciavarra v. Commonwealth, 970 A.2d 500 (2009) (15-day reconsideration period is mandatory; late requests deprive agency of jurisdiction)
- Douglas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 151 A.3d 1188 (2016) (mailbox rule: proof of mailing can support presumption of receipt)
- Ne. Eye Inst. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 176 A.3d 455 (2017) (no presumption of receipt unless there is evidence the notice was mailed)
- H.D. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 751 A.2d 1216 (2000) (nunc pro tunc appeals allowed for extraordinary circumstances or administrative breakdown)
- Support Ctr. for Child Advocates v. Dep't of Human Servs., 189 A.3d 497 (2018) (appellate review limited to substantial evidence, law, and constitutional claims)
- Casey Ball Supports Coordination, LLC v. Dep't of Human Servs., 160 A.3d 278 (2017) (standard for appellate review of BHA decisions)