342 P.3d 1190
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- APS notified Magdalene Pal that it had found she neglected a vulnerable adult and that she had 30 calendar days to request an administrative hearing; the notice referenced WAC 388-71-01240 and stated a faxed request must be mailed the same day.
- Pal received the notice on Dec 22, 2011, making Jan 19, 2012 the 30-day deadline.
- Pal faxed her hearing request to OAH on Jan 19 at 7:16 p.m.; OAH stamped it received Jan 20 because the fax arrived after business hours. The fax cover sheet stated a mailed copy was en route.
- DSHS moved to dismiss, arguing the filing was untimely under WAC 388-02-0035(2) (deadline ends at 5:00 p.m.) and that Pal failed to perfect the appeal by mailing a copy the same day as required by WAC 388-71-01240.
- The ALJ and Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; superior court affirmed. The appellate court reviewed de novo issues of law and constitutional claims and did not disturb unchallenged findings of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Pal's Argument | DSHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of filing | Pal faxed on the 30th calendar day, so it was timely; notice used "calendar days" and did not state a time-of-day cutoff | WAC 388-02-0035(2) governs deadline calculation and expressly ends at 5:00 p.m.; filing after 5:00 p.m. is untimely | Filing was untimely under WAC 388-02-0035(2) (deadline 5:00 p.m.), so Pal did not meet the regulation's time requirement |
| Adequacy of notice / due process | APS notice cited WAC 388-71-01240 but did not mention the 5:00 p.m. cutoff; Pal says notice did not reasonably apprise her of the time deadline | DSHS says notice referenced chapter and regs generally and a diligent person could find the 5:00 p.m. rule | Notice was constitutionally inadequate because citation to WAC 388-71-01240 (and general references) did not reasonably notify Pal of the separate 5:00 p.m. deadline; due process violated |
| Mailing requirement & ALJ jurisdiction | Even if Pal failed to mail same-day, OAH actually received the faxed request; receipt of the fax should be sufficient to confer jurisdiction | WAC 388-71-01240 requires same-day mailing of a faxed request; failure to perfect appeal deprives OAH/ALJ of jurisdiction | Although substantial evidence showed no mailed copy was received, the mailing requirement is procedural only; actual receipt of the fax is sufficient to permit the ALJ to exercise jurisdiction |
| Attorney fees (RCW 4.84.350) | Pal seeks fees as prevailing party on judicial review | DSHS argues its enforcement of the deadlines and mailing rule was substantially justified | Fees denied: DSHS was substantially justified in enforcing the regulatory deadline and mailing rule despite the notice defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for procedural due process balancing)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (landmark statement of due process notice standard)
- State v. Storhoff, 133 Wn.2d 523 (Wash. 1997) (citation to statute/chapter can satisfy due process notice depending on context)
- Troxell v. Rainier Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 307, 154 Wn.2d 345 (Wash. 2005) (interpretation of "calendar day" context in statutory timing)