Knowlton v. Harvey

Decision Date29 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. S-93-1095,S-93-1095
Citation249 Neb. 693,545 N.W.2d 434
PartiesJanie KNOWLTON, Appellant, v. Mary Dean HARVEY, Director, Nebraska Department of Social Services, and the Nebraska Department of Social Services, Appellees.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Administrative Law: Judgments: Appeal and Error. On an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act, an appellate court reviews the judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record and will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings.

2. Administrative Law: Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. As to questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent from a trial court's conclusion in a judgment under review.

4. Federal Acts: States: Public Assistance: Parent and Child. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children program is a creation of federal statute administered by the states under a scheme of cooperative federalism. It is designed to furnish financial assistance, rehabilitation, and other services to needy children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living, to help maintain and strengthen family life, and to help families become self-supporting.

5. Public Assistance: Parent and Child: Handicapped Persons: Expert Witnesses: Time. The federal standard for determining incapacity for Aid to Families with Dependent Children purposes provides physical or mental incapacity of a parent shall be deemed to exist when one parent has a physical or mental defect, illness, or impairment. The incapacity shall be supported by competent medical testimony and must be of such a debilitating nature as to reduce substantially or eliminate the parent's ability to support or care for the otherwise eligible child and be expected to last for a period of at least 30 days. In making the determination of ability to support, the agency shall take into account the limited employment opportunities of handicapped individuals.

6. Public Assistance: Parent and Child: Handicapped Persons: Time. Nebraska's counterpart to the federal standard for determining incapacity for Aid to Families with Dependent Children purposes provides that physical or mental incapacity means any physical or mental illness, impairment, or defect which is so severe as to 7. Federal Acts: States: Public Assistance. The manner in which a state administers a federal assistance program must be consistent with federal law.

substantially reduce or eliminate the parent's ability to provide support or care for a child. The incapacity must be expected to last at least 30 days.

8. Constitutional Law: Federal Acts: States: Public Assistance. A state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Stephen A. Davis, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction.

Milo Alexander, Omaha, for appellant.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Royce N. Harper, Lincoln, for appellees.

WHITE, C.J., and CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, LANPHIER, CONNOLLY, and GERRARD, JJ.

FAHRNBRUCH, Justice.

Nebraska's Department of Social Services (DSS) found that Janie Knowlton was ineligible to continue receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.

Pursuant to Nebraska's Administrative Procedure Act, Knowlton filed in the district court for Douglas County a petition for judicial review of DSS' decision.

Although the district court correctly found that because of her migraine headaches Knowlton's ability to support and care for her children has been substantially reduced, the court erred in determining that Knowlton's disability would not last for a period of at least 30 days.

We hold that, under federal law, Knowlton is entitled to receive benefits under the AFDC program.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Restated and summarized, Knowlton claims that the district court erred in finding that for the purposes of AFDC (1) "incapacity" requires that the claimant's symptoms, rather than an illness or condition causing the symptoms, must persist for a continuous period of at least 30 days, and (2) Knowlton is not incapacitated.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On an appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act, an appellate court reviews the judgment of the district court for errors appearing on the record and will not substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings. George Rose & Sons v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 248 Neb. 92, 532 N.W.2d 18 (1995). See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-918 (Reissue 1994). When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Wagoner v. Central Platte Nat. Resources Dist., 247 Neb. 233, 526 N.W.2d 422 (1995).

As to questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent from a trial court's conclusion in a judgment under review. Unland v. City of Lincoln, 247 Neb. 837, 530 N.W.2d 624 (1995).

FACTS

Knowlton has had a long history of severe migraine headaches. In its brief, DSS recognizes that since 1989, Knowlton has received AFDC benefits. After a final hearing before DSS, its director on March 25, 1993, entered an order finding that Knowlton experiences migraine headaches for 3 to 5 days a week for 3 out of every 4 weeks. The director also found that these headaches were characterized by visual disturbances, nausea, vomiting, and blackouts, sometimes causing Knowlton to be bedridden for up to 5 days. Sometimes the vomiting included blood. Knowlton testified that during the 6-month period before DSS' final hearing, she was hospitalized The record reflects that when Knowlton gets migraine headaches, she is unable to care for her children. Although Knowlton had not attempted any kind of employment for over a year and a half, she did attempt to engage in volunteer work at her children's school. She stopped her volunteer efforts because 50 percent of the time headaches and nausea prevented her from fulfilling her commitment. In her last remunerative employment, Knowlton provided care for children. She testified without objection and without contradiction that both of her physicians advised her that she could no longer engage in that type of employment.

and received treatment twice and went to the Methodist Hospital emergency room in Omaha where she received treatment 17 times because of the severity of her headaches. She testified that she had called Methodist Hospital and that it verified the number of times she had been treated in its emergency room. Although the direct or was not present at the final DSS hearing and, therefore, did not observe Knowlton testify, the director discounted Knowlton's testimony because it was not totally corroborated in her primary physician's report. The DSS director found that in any given month, Knowlton saw her regular physician two or three times.

DSS' State Review Team (SRT) had, since 1989, periodically reviewed Knowlton's eligibility and found her qualified to receive AFDC benefits. The most recent review was initiated in December 1992. As part of that review, SRT considered the first page of a purported December 1992 report of Dr. Robert R. Sundell, a neurologist who first treated Knowlton in 1990 after Knowlton suffered a stroke. Substantial portions of medical data purportedly provided by Dr. Sundell reveal that Dr. Sundell primarily had treated Knowlton for pain in her low back, right buttock, and right leg, all of which Dr. Sundell thought were independent of Knowlton's migraine headaches. Medical reports reflect that Knowlton's neurological problems were caused by two automobile accidents. The medical records further reflect that Dr. Robert Underriner was the primary physician treating Knowlton's migraine headaches and that Dr. Sundell was the primary treating physician and consultant for Knowlton's neurological problems, although there were occasions when he prescribed and increased medication for Knowlton's headaches. Attached to the questionnaire purportedly returned to DSS by Dr. Sundell were medical notes and other related medical correspondence regarding Knowlton. A DSS questionnaire, which the record reflects was not signed by Dr. Sundell, consisted, in part, of six questions. The questions and answers are as follows:

1. Is the individual able to engage in his/her previous type [of] employment? unknown what former employment was. [S]ee below for other questions

2. Does he/she have the capacity to engage in any type of employment? yes

3. Is he/she able to participate with vocational rehabilitation at this time? yes ...

4. In your opinion, is this in dividual disabled? no

5. When was the onset of this impairment? first saw in 1980 for headaches

6. How long do you expect the impairment to last? indeterminant [sic]

(Emphasis supplied.)

The six-question questionnaire does not contain Dr. Sundell's signature, but only the signature of a Theresa Baxter, apparently a DSS employee. The second page of the questionnaire is not included in the record. Furthermore, the record does not indicate which ailment or ailments are the basis for Dr. Sundell's purported answers.

Apparently, DSS found that Knowlton experienced migraine headaches 3 to 5 days a week for 3 out of every 4 weeks....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kolesnick By and Through Shaw v. Omaha Public School Dist.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 1997
    ...court where competent evidence supports those findings. Rainbolt v. State, 250 Neb. 567, 550 N.W.2d 341 (1996); Knowlton v. Harvey, 249 Neb. 693, 545 N.W.2d 434 (1996); Metro Renovation v. State, 249 Neb. 337, 543 N.W.2d 715 (1996); George Rose & Sons v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 248 Neb. ......
  • Rainbolt v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 1996
    ...substitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent evidence supports those findings. Knowlton v. Harvey, 249 Neb. 693, 545 N.W.2d 434 (1996); Metro Renovation v. State, 249 Neb. 337, 543 N.W.2d 715 (1996); George Rose & Sons v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 248 Neb......
  • Freis v. Harvey
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • 6 Mayo 1997
    ...Hospitals v. State, 251 Neb. 793, 559 N.W.2d 487 (1997); Rainbolt v. State, 250 Neb. 567, 550 N.W.2d 341 (1996); Knowlton v. Harvey, 249 Neb. 693, 545 N.W.2d 434 (1996). Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an ind......
  • IBP, Inc. v. Sands
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 30 Mayo 1997
    ...Hospitals v. State, 251 Neb. 793, 559 N.W.2d 487 (1997); Rainbolt v. State, 250 Neb. 567, 550 N.W.2d 341 (1996); Knowlton v. Harvey, 249 Neb. 693, 545 N.W.2d 434 (1996); Metro Renovation v. State, 249 Neb. 337, 543 N.W.2d 715 (1996). ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IBP assigns as error the district co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT