*1 23328. In Bank. Apr. No. 1976.] [S.F. HARLOW, Plaintiff and

HARLOW Respondent, CARLESON, Director, etc., as Defendant

ROBERT B. Appellant.

Counsel Palmer, General, J. Elizabeth Assistant Evelle Younger, Attorney General, Brown Eleanor Sheridan H. and Attorney Nísperos, Deputy General, and for Defendant Attorneys Appellant. Plaintiff and M. III for

Armando Menocal N. May Christopher Respondent.

Opinion RICHARDSON, J.This and its Le Blanc case Swoap, companion, 304,548 P.2d 744 129 raise the issue of 704], post, page Cal.Rptr. proper [ standard of review to in an be used administrative judicial mandamus action to annul a decision welfare brought assistance. terminating

We conclude within reasoning Strumsky Retirement Assn. (1974) Cal.3d 28 Diego County Employees 805, Pierno benefits, continued welfare for right decisions, review welfare is both judicial “fundamental” purposes “vested,” standard of thereby invoking review.

Harlow Harlow welfare benefits under (respondent) began receiving the aid to the disabled (A.T.D.) permanently totally program 1970 after been medical review state January having diagnosed by *4 reaction, board as from suffering “schizophrenic hebephrenic type.” has or true her name and Respondent forgotten ignored history personal 17. before She has received assistance under the A.T.D. age continuously since for a six-month from program January except period April 1972. Benefits were withheld from her through September during that on the of a basis decision issued period by appellant Department 17, 1972, Social Welfare on that January (Department) holding respon- dent’s no were sufficient to her for A.T.D. impairments longer qualify aid, benefits. for A.T.D. and her Subsequently, respondent reapplied benefits were restored. filed an administrative mandamus action in San the

Respondent Court, Francisco the decision Superior challenging January court, terminate her A.T.D. benefits. The the rejecting independent review, test, standard of the substantial evidence judgment applied found that the administrative decision not was challenged supported by substantial evidence. The that any Department appeals, contending substantial evidence did exist to its determination. support Respondent exist, if asserts in that even substantial evidence did the reply proper standard, standard review was the judicial independent judgment standard, that the under this the trial court would have reversed clearly We decision. with agree respondent. Department’s 1094.5, Code of Civil Procedure section review judicial authorizing decisions, administrative or orders establishes two different standards review. Subdivision of the (c) section that “... in cases in which provides the court is authorized law to exercise its on by judgment independent evidence, abuse of discretion is if the court determines established evidence; are not findings supported by weight if the court determines of discretion is established all other cases abuse in the evidence are not substantial that the light findings supported the whole record.” test, administrative of the evidence

Under substantial findings record, the trial if, the entire after must reviewing upheld agency exists that substantial evidence agency’s determines supporting court test, on the evidence or The weight independent judgment findings. the evidence hand, to reconsider the trial court other requires Pierno, of fact. (See supra, make its own Bixby findings independent 130, 143-144.) that, not held with This court has exceptions pertinent repeatedly here, must be review standard applied affects “fundamental decision whenever an administrative substantially Retirement vested (Strumsky Diego County Employees rights.” Assn., 28, 34; 4 Cal.3d 11 Cal.3d supra, 71 Cal.2d 914-915 Merrill v. Motor Vehicles Department of 89, 458 P.2d 33].) *5 denote in a sense to The term “vested” has been used nontechnical Pierno, 146) at v. a p. “already (Bixby supra, generally right possessed” or County Diego Employees “legitimately acquired.” {Strumsky Assn., basis, this court has 34.) at On this Retirement p. supra, ill between determining distinguished generally applicants recipients the a limited whether is “vested” for the determining right purpose area, “In cases of review. For in the licensing applicable scope example, license, to have deferred for a the courts largely involving applications has . once the the administrative of the . . agency expertise agency [but] fulfills that an individual exercised its and determined initially expertise to his agency’s subsequent requirements practice profession, facts ....” review of the an calls for of the license revocation independent added; v. 146, Pierno, italics at Drummey v. compare p. {Bixby supra, with 13 Cal.2d 75 Funeral Directors (1939) State Bd. [87 1035, 123 A.L.R. 13 Cal.2d 741 v. Goodcell (1939) McDonough [91 area, an for recent case has held that In the welfare a 1205].) applicant and, denial of had thereto welfare benefits no vested accordingly, right test; evidence be reviewed under the usual substantial benefits should termination situations the court involving specifically distinguished 1057, 1059 v. Martin (1972) welfare benefits. Cal.App.3d {Taylor we nature of review In den.) considering judicial hg. hold that continued welfare is to “vested” respondent’s right payments within the of the cases. meaning foregoing

Given the above, rationale of the authorities cited would it appear irrelevant that the had retained the Legislature to amend general power or revoke benefits under its (Welf. welfare & granted Inst. programs Code, 13502, 1973, 1216, § Stats. ch. or had 55) § repealed granted counties to or cancel welfare & (Welf. awards Inst. authority modify Code, 13750, 1973, 1216, § Stats. ch. 55). In § context in repealed every which the of the standard of review of administrative question judicial arises, decisions the administrative has the to withdraw the agency power from benefit the individual if certain conditions But exist. we have held that the relevant factor is whether a certain benefit uniformly or whether, or was not right “already possessed” “legitimately acquired,” received, once was it to remain the fact that the permanently. Similarly, lost, to terminated, future benefits is not when no has right irretrievably on the a whether is “vested.” bearing question right continued benefits concluded that to welfare right

Having “vested,” we be consider whether is also considered right may determination, a we have indicated that “fundamental.” In such making should not economic but also its courts only aspect right, weigh “effect... in human and the of it to the individual in terms importance Pierno, 144.) the life situation.” v. at (Bixby supra, p. Applying not to we have held to so fundamental necessitate as principle test, of the various interests application rights interest an in a variance including applicant zoning (Topanga a Assn. Scenic Los Community County Angeles for fn. 1 12]), corporation’s right obtain aof at approval recapitalization (Bixby plan *6 130), the of the bondholders to construction of a p. right bridge prevent (Faulkner v. Cal. Toll 40 (1953) neighboring bridge Bridge Authority 317 Cal.2d P.2d the in and of a water 659]), right [253 company diverting water from a river Water Co. v. Public (Temescal Works particular Dept. 44 Cal.2d In 1]). 90 P.2d those cases we concluded that (1955) the [280 deferential be substantial evidence standard should used in the reviewing administrative decisions. hand,

On the other we have held other of various to be sufficient rights to the individual to review. importance justify independent judgment These have included a widow’s to receive a death allowance right Assn., Retirement the (Strumsky Diego County Employees supra), to continued insurance benefits right unemployment compensation

737 v. 39 Cal.2d 501 Stab. Com. (Thomas (1952) Emp. [247 California to v. 561]), the continue one’s trade or Board right profession {Yakov 785, 67, Medical Cal.2d Examiners 68 71-72 435 (1968) Cal.Rptr. [64 of Directors, v. State Bd. Faulkner v. 553]; Funeral Drummey supra; Public 47 Retirement 731 (1975) Employees’ System Cal.App.3d [121 benefits]; v. Ontario Cal.Rptr. disability Hadley City 190] [retirement 43 (1974) 121 reinstatement]; Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [job [117 513] Valenzuela v. Board Civil Service 40 557 (1974) Comrs. Cal.App.3d reinstatement]; Craver v. Los Cal.Rptr. [job City Angeles [115 103] 42 (1974) retirement Cal.App.3d [disability [117 534] pension]). cases, in the conclude that

Under set forth we guidelines foregoing is a to welfare benefits of a welfare continued right recipient terms, and in It is fundamental both in economic fundamental one. to in . . ... of its “effect... human terms and . terms importance [its] 144.) Like at the fife situation.” v. individual in {Bixby supra, p. which deemed both vested benefits we the widow’s retirement benefits to continued welfare in fundamental right Strumsky, supra, Thomas involves, course, also (See the individual’s means of support. 501, Com., Stab. holding Emp. the denial of are a insurance benefits right,” “property unemployment Indeed, court.) de novo a limited trial which warrants reviewing from to an individual disabled employ- welfare benefits totally gaining retirement than to be even more ment are important necessary likely a to earn still able to an individual who benefits physically may 2 Cal.3d 647 (1970) v. Terzian livelihood. As we observed in McCullough aid to A.L.R.3d “Termination means an him of for his survival eligible recipient deprives very 653-654.) at We {Id., his situation becomes immediately desperate.” pp. think it that the United States Court significant Goldberg Supreme L.Ed.2d S.Ct. held that 397 U.S. has Kelly to welfare fall within the benefits to right important enough - of benefits to due attach. Under which category process rights cases, we find our that this is also principles prior right important to when an standard of review enough trigger administrative has been made determination terminating person’s entitlement this right. *7 is if the standard

Appellant argues judgment independent welfare in actions held administrative mandamus challenging applicable with the terminations, lack California’s will welfare conformity program 738 42

federal U.S.C. (see 1352(a)(3)) § regulations rendering program for federal we are not with faced Fortunately, ineligible funding. choice afforded under law on one rights preserving hand, other, on continued federal welfare we find assistance for no between the federal and a rule inconsistency requirements requiring standard review in welfare terminations independent judgment cases.

Section 1352(a)(3) of title 42 United States Code a state requires federal welfare assistance to establish a state seeking to single agency administer the to aid disabled. program permanently totally This was made of all of the welfare titles in requirement the Social part Act and still remains of the aid to families with Security part dependent children Thus, (A.F.D.C.). (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(3).) notwith- program § federal administrative of the standing adult aid assumption programs, A.T.D., us, involved in the including case now before program interest, herein remains of considerable question because its presented continued relevance to the A.F.D.C. program.

Neither the state nor the federal “single agency” requirement regula- tions it would interfere with a rule that a adopted implement requiring court use the standard in welfare reviewing termination decisions. Section Code of Federal 205.100(b), Regula- tions, cited is silent on the standard review to be by appellant, applied courts. Its which are concerned with by reviewing provisions, primarily that no other state interfere in the assuring agency may making decisions, rules, and the authorized state in regulations by single agency, no review courts of the way preclude independent by fact-finding process. herein,

The trial court in benefits to erred awarding respondent, in Nevertheless, substantial evidence it test. is clear from applying the record that had the court properly applied independent judgment test, result, it would have reached the same for this latter test more favorable to than that utilized the trial court in respondent ruling affirm, her favor. Our “. . . to or direct the power modify entry a final . . to be end construed to the that a cause judgment. liberally [is] of on a (American Inc. v. may disposed single appeal.” Enterprise, Const., Van Winkle 39 Cal.2d 935]; see Cal. art. VI, Proc., 43, 909; Code Civ. § see also §§ Mantón (1943) Gudger Witkin, Cal. 217]; (2d 1971) Procedure ed.

739 remand, result, were we to 315, Where 4293.) § p. Appeal, record, exercise this we should from the power dispose foreordained further of the case without proceedings. exercised its

Thus, if the trial court had we treat this as appeal limited the record is our review of Accordingly, judgment. in substantial evidence to a determination whether there exists any v. Medical the trial court’s Board of judgment. support {Moran of 301, 32 308 P.2d 20]; Examiners (1948) Bixby [196 evidence 10.) 4 Cal.3d 130 at fn. We find substantial ample p. her for an which would suffered qualify respondent impairment Indeed, ATD benefits in Department during period question. does'not contend otherwise.

The is affirmed. J., J., J., McComb, J., Tobriner, Mosk, J., Sullivan, C. and

Wright, concurred. CLARK, J., Dissenting. Chief the reasons us perceptively given by For in

Justice Gibson his in Laisne v. Cal. St. Bd. dissenting opinion of 19 Cal.2d 831 P.2d Justice in his (1942) 457], by Traynor Optometry [123 in Dare v. Bd. Medical Examiners concurring dissenting opinion in Cal.2d 790 and his Moran (1943) dissenting opinion [136 304] Medical 32 Cal.2d 301 (1948) Board Examiners [196 Burke in v. Pierno Justice in his concurring dissenting opinion 4 Cal.3d 130 481 P.2d and his (1971) dissenting 242] Retirement Assn. in v. San County opinion Strumsky Diego Employees I 11 Cal.3d 28 dissent. (1974) action should of administrative de novo review California’s trial Review Travis, Judgment” reexamined. Scope “Independent (E.g., Note, 27; County Employees Cal.L.Rev. Strumsky Diego (1975) Review Judicial Retirement Association: Determining Scope 1465; L.J. (1975) Hastings Administrative Decisions California Action Administrative Review Judicial Gardner & Greenberger, Forkosch, De 7; Judicial 63 Geo.L.J. (1975) Government Responsible (1974) Fact Determinations Quasi-Judicial Administrative Review Novo Process: A Molinari, 963; Administrative L.J. 25 Hastings Davis, Administra Law. Santa Clara Synthesis Updated Question Jaffe, Review: Judicial 29.01 et Treatise (1958) § tive Law seq.; *9 Law 69 Harv.L.Rev. The Chaos in McGovney, Court Review the Decisions State Administrative (1942) 15 Agencies So.Cal.L.Rev. 391.)