Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
559 S.W.3d 291
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- In June 2002 DHS (via Arkansas State Police CACD) investigated a report that appellant Cleveland Smith physically abused his then-teenage daughter V.S.; photographs showed linear marks, welts, and scabbed/broken skin on her upper arm and back.
- CACD referred the matter to Division of Children and Family Services and Smith's name was placed on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry after a "true" finding.
- Smith asserts he disciplined V.S. with a belt for running away; V.S. gave mixed testimony (acknowledging discipline but also saying family members encouraged lying and later praising her father).
- Smith claimed he never received notice of the 2002 investigative determination; DHS did not notify him until 2015 when it disclosed the report to a prospective employer, after which Smith requested a hearing.
- An ALJ held an administrative hearing in August 2016, found insufficient proof Smith received notice in 2002, but concluded the injuries were nonaccidental and exceeded reasonable/moderate discipline; the circuit court summarily affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for "abuse" finding | Smith: bruises and discipline with a belt do not prove abuse; no medical care or removal from home | DHS/ALJ: photos show broken skin and linear injuries consistent with being struck, exceeding minor/transient marks | Substantial evidence supports the ALJ; registry listing affirmed |
| Notice / Due process for 2002 determination | Smith: DHS violated due process by not notifying him in 2002 and denying timely opportunity to contest | DHS/ALJ: ALJ found Smith did not receive notice; ALJ later afforded hearing in 2016 (available remedy at the time) | Court agreed Smith lacked timely notice but refused to reverse on due-process ground because he failed to raise it administratively |
| Timeliness of administrative hearing | Smith: hearing occurred untimely (statute required completion/commencement within 180 days), so the true finding should be overturned | DHS: procedural timeliness issue was not raised before the ALJ; statute language changed and relief is not automatic | Not preserved for appellate review (issue not presented first to ALJ); court declined to overturn |
| Standard and scope of review | Smith: asks appellate court to reweigh evidence and overturn agency | DHS: agency findings entitled to deference; review limited to substantial-evidence standard | Court applied substantial-evidence review and deferred to agency factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Bixler, 364 Ark. 292, 219 S.W.3d 125 (discusses limited scope of judicial review of agency decisions)
- Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. A.B., 374 Ark. 193, 286 S.W.3d 712 (appellate review directed to agency record; substantial-evidence standard)
- Ark. State Police Comm'n v. Smith, 338 Ark. 354, 994 S.W.2d 456 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Olsten Health Servs., Inc. v. Ark. Health Servs. Comm'n, 69 Ark. App. 313, 12 S.W.3d 656 (agency credibility and weight of evidence are for the agency)
- Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Holman, 96 Ark. App. 243, 240 S.W.3d 618 (bruising alone is not dispositive; attendant circumstances matter)
- C.C.B. v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 368 Ark. 540, 247 S.W.3d 870 (parties before agencies are entitled to due process)
- Odyssey Healthcare Operating A. LP v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 459, 469 S.W.3d 381 (issues must be raised before the agency to preserve appellate review)
- Sheppard v. Ark. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 2014 Ark. App. 604, 447 S.W.3d 614 (appellate courts will not set aside agency determinations on grounds not presented to the agency)