Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,435 documents
Decision Content
GALLEGOS V. N.M. HUMAN SERVS. DEP'T.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
KIMBERLY GALLEGOS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW MEXICO HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 32,594
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
June 25, 2013
APPEAL FROM THE NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Aldo Jadrnicek, Administrative Law Judge
COUNSEL
New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, Craig Acorn, Senior Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
New Mexico Human Services Department, Robert J. Lennon, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
JUDGES
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge. WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
Appellant Kimberly Gallegos (Claimant) appeals from the ruling by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) [RP 1], as adopted by the Human Services Department (HSD) Director [SRP 1], that dismisses Claimant’s request for a fair hearing [RP 134] to contest the merits of whether her Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) benefits were improvidently terminated. [RP 1] As a basis for the dismissal, the ALJ provided that Claimant did not timely request a hearing within 90 days from HSD’s April 16, 2012 notice of adverse action [RP 94, 126] and that the ALJ accordingly was exercising his discretion to dismiss her request for a fair hearing on the merits. [RP 1] Our second notice proposed to reverse and remand. The Human Services Department (HSD) did not file a memorandum in opposition. Claimant filed a memorandum in support in which she agreed that reversal and remand was appropriate.
As addressed in our second notice in issue (C) and conceded by Claimant [MIS 5], Claimant did not satisfy the 90-day deadline for challenging the termination of her benefits after issuance of the notice of adverse action. However, for the reasons extensively detailed in our second notice, we hold that the ALJ abused his discretion in not addressing the merits of whether HSD improvidently terminated Claimant’s TANF benefits. For this reason, we reverse the ALJ’s ruling that dismisses Claimant’s appeal for failure to comply with the 90-day deadline for requesting a fair hearing and remand for consideration of the merits of Claimant’s appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge