Ex parte State Dept. of Human Resources
Decision Date | 16 December 1988 |
Citation | 548 So.2d 176 |
Parties | Ex parte STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. (Re W.F. HAND v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES). 87-1110. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William Prendergast and James F. Long, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.
Edward R. Tibbetts, Mobile, for respondent.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether administrative rules and regulations qualify as "otherwise provided by law" as that phrase is used in the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act. The pertinent portion of Ala.Code, 1975, § 41-22-20(b), a part of the Administrative Procedure Act, reads as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
On September 15, 1985, W.F. Hand, represented by counsel, applied through the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("Department"), an agency of the State of Alabama, for a federal Individual Family Grant ("IFG") for the allegedly disaster-related damages to his mobile home, which occurred when Hurricane Elena struck Mobile, Alabama.
The Department denied Hand's application because of a report from the U.S. Attorney's office that Hand's mobile home was not located at his address at the time of the storm and, therefore, was not damaged by the storm. Hand requested a Department administrative hearing on the denial of his application. On March 30, 1987, the Department issued a written administrative decision denying Hand's IFG application for relief, together with a copy of the agency's regulation, 660-1-5-.15, regarding the method of appealing from that decision:
(Emphasis added.)
On April 30, 1987, counsel for Hand filed a notice of appeal and petitioned for review in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, in compliance with the method of appeal set out in the above-cited regulation. The Department received the notice of appeal on May 7, 1987, and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the notice of appeal was untimely filed, in that it was not filed with the Department within 30 days of the denial of the application in accordance with § 41-22-20(b).
The Circuit Court of Mobile County treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the Department and against Hand, who appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.
The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that the legislative intent in enacting the AAPA was not to discourage agencies from adopting procedures conferring additional rights upon the public. Rather, that court said, one of the purposes of the AAPA was to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action and to increase its ease and availability; that § 41-22-20(b) was written with this purpose and intent in mind; and that the Legislature contemplated legal procedures for judicial review of agency action other than those expressly set out in the AAPA.
We disagree. The specific provisions of AAPA § 41-22-12 through § 41-22-20 govern contested cases on appeal. The agency had no authority to adopt a rule that conflicted therewith. An appeal may be taken only where authorized by statute and must be perfected in accordance with the time and manner prescribed by the statute; if such requirements are not complied with, the appeal must be dismissed. Crawford v. Ray & Pearman Lincoln Mercury, 420 So.2d 269 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Moutry v. State, 359 So.2d 388 (Ala.Civ.App.1978). A failure to appeal in the manner prescribed by statute, results in there being no appeal taken at all. Rogers v. Singleton, 286 Ala. 83, 237 So.2d 473 (1970).
When the legislature established the procedures for appeals delineated in § 41-22-12 through § 41-22-20, Code 1975, it intended that a uniform procedure be established that would apply to and govern all agencies covered by the AAPA; it did not intend to grant, nor did it grant, to the agency any authority to make rules in conflict with those specific sections; rules of agencies should not be allowed to erode or repeal such intended uniformity; variations should occur only through legislation creating "other law," not through an agency rule or regulation that conflicts with the AAPA provisions.
In Ex parte City of Florence, 417 So.2d 191 (Ala.1982), this Court struck down a city police department regulation as being in conflict with the statutorily required punishment for certain offenses and stated:
417 So.2d 191 at 193-94. The provisions of the statute will prevail in any case of conflict between a statute and an agency regulation. N. Singer, 1A Sutherland Stat. Const. § 31.02 (Sands 4th ed. 1985). The Court of Civil Appeals, in Druid City Health Care Authority v. Alabama State Health Planning &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Southeast Alabama Medical Center
... ... adopts and follows procedures for doing so that are consistent with state regulations contemplated by the Act. The employer in the present case has ... Co., 589 So.2d 208 (Ala.1991) ; Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 548 So.2d 176 (Ala.1988) (regulation must be consistent with the ... ...
-
N. Face Constr. v. City of Birmingham
...to the plaintiff about the venue for appeal, causing the plaintiff's delay in filing a proper appeal. Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 548 So.2d 176, 177 (Ala. 1988). The Alabama Supreme Court stated: “Unfairness in all degrees results from governmental changes of position,” and estoppel......
-
State Dept. of Revenue v. Sonat, Inc.
... ... Ex parte State Dep't of Human Resources, 548 So.2d 176 (Ala.1988).' ... "The Department's ... ...
-
Dept. of Rev. V. Jim Beam Brands Co.
... ... court reviews de novo an order of an administrative law judge in the State Department of Revenue; however, the order is presumed prima facie correct ... 11 So.3d 860 ... So.2d 380, 382 (Ala.Civ.App.2001); see also Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997)." ... 855 So.2d at ... Ex parte State Dep't of Human Resources, 548 So.2d 176 (Ala.1988). An administrative regulation must be ... ...