593 S.W.3d 250
Tex.2019Background
- Patricia Mosley, a home-health worker, was found to have committed “reportable conduct” and an ALJ issued a Final Decision and Order that could lead to her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry, effectively barring employment in licensed facilities.
- The ALJ’s cover letter quoted a Department regulation (now repealed) and stated Mosley had 30 days to file a petition for judicial review in district court; it did not tell her a motion for rehearing to the ALJ was required before seeking judicial review.
- Mosley followed the letter and filed for judicial review without first filing a motion for rehearing; the Agencies moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because she had not exhausted the APA motion-for-rehearing prerequisite.
- The trial court reached the merits and decided against Mosley; the court of appeals reversed, holding failure to file a motion for rehearing divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
- The Texas Supreme Court held the APA’s motion-for-rehearing requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review absent an explicit statutory exception, but also held the Agencies’ misleading letter and erroneous regulation deprived Mosley of due process.
- Remedy: The Court affirmed lack of trial-court jurisdiction but ordered the Health and Human Services Commission to reinstate Mosley’s administrative case so she may file a motion for rehearing (i.e., grant the procedural relief due under the Constitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion for rehearing under the APA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of a Registry finding | Mosley: Chapter 48’s silence or its limited invocation of APA subchapter G, plus the Department rule in effect, meant no rehearing was required | Agencies: APA requires a timely motion for rehearing before judicial review; an incorrect agency rule cannot create jurisdiction | Held: APA’s motion-for-rehearing requirement is generally jurisdictional absent clear statutory language to the contrary; Mosley needed to seek rehearing before judicial review |
| Whether the Department’s rule (quoted in the letter) validly authorized bypassing rehearing | Mosley: The Department had rulemaking authority to set procedures and the rule authorized direct judicial review | Agencies: The rule was incorrect and cannot override APA requirements | Held: Agency rules cannot contravene APA; the quoted rule was invalid and not authoritative |
| Whether Mosley’s failure to seek rehearing bars her from bringing a constitutional due-process claim | Mosley: Her due-process claim challenges the Agencies’ misdirection that prevented exhaustion; exhaustion should not be required where the agency misled her out of filing rehearing | Agencies: Failure to exhaust deprives courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims | Held: Court has jurisdiction to hear due-process claim alleging agency misdirection that prevented administrative exhaustion; exhaustion not required where misdirection caused the failure |
| Whether the Agencies’ misleading letter and erroneous rule violated due process and justify relief despite the rehearing requirement | Mosley: She detrimentally relied on the letter and rule; misleading notice created high risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty/property interests | Agencies: Parties are charged with knowing the law; Mosley could have pursued both remedies or known to seek rehearing | Held: The letter and regulation affirmatively misled Mosley, depriving her of meaningful opportunity to exhaust remedies and violating due process; relief is to reinstate the administrative proceeding so she can file a rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Water Comm’n v. Dellana, 849 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1993) (holding failure to file motion for rehearing precluded judicial review under predecessor statute)
- Temple Indep. Sch. Dist. v. English, 896 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1995) (motion for rehearing is jurisdictional prerequisite to district-court review)
- United States v. Penn. Indus. Chem. Corp., 411 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1973) (government’s consistent misinterpretation may bar enforcement on fairness/due-process grounds)
- Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1970) (agency misstatements can deny effective appeal and violate due process)
- Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1990) (misleading notice in benefits context creates high risk of erroneous deprivation and violates due process)