Oliva v. Swoap

• Decision Date: 15 June 1976
• Citation: 130 Cal.Rptr. 411,59 Cal.App.3d 130
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Robert OLIVA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. David B. SWOAP, Director of the State Department of Social Welfare, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 14455.

Page 411

130 Cal.Rptr. 411

59 Cal.App.3d 130

Robert OLIVA, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. David B. SWOAP, Director of the State Department of Social Welfare, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 14455.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

June 15, 1976.

Hearing Denied Aug. 26, 1976.

Clifford Sweet, F. Hayden Curry, Mary Mocine, Gary Grimm, and Eric P. Gold, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, Oakland, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., by N. Eugene Hill and John Fourt, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant.

PUGLIA, Presiding Justice.

Robert Oliva, an adult incompetent, by Villa F. Oliva, his guardian ad litem, and Catherine Sargent, on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated (hereinafter 'plaintiffs'), filed this action in Sacramento Superior Court for writ of mandate, injunction and declaratory relief. They pray that defendant, the director of the State Department of Social Welfare (hereinafter 'Department'), ¹ be prohibited from reducing current grants to welfare recipients who have fully reported all facts material to an accurate determination of their grants in order to recover overpayments caused by county administrative errors. This practice is referred to as 'grant adjustment.'

The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring the use of grant adjustments to recoup such overpayments contrary to law and void, and permanently enjoining defendant from using, and directing defendant to discontinue, the grant adjustment method in such cases. Defendant appeals, contending (1) that plaintiffs failed first to exhaust their administrative remedies, and (2) that Welfare and Institutions Code section 11004 ² authorizes use of grant adjustments to recover overpayments attributable to county administrative errors.

Plaintiffs represent themselves and a class of persons who receive cash grants under public assistance programs. At the time the action was commenced, these programs included aid to the disabled (former § 13500 et seq.), aid to the blind (former § 12500 et seq.), old age security (former § 12000 et seq.) and aid to families with dependent children (§ 11200 et seq.). ³ Between June 1971 and March 1973, plaintiff Oliva, a resident of Alameda County receiving aid to the disabled cash grants, received overpayments in the amount of $56 per month. Between November 1971 and March 1972, plaintiff Sargent, a resident of Contra Costa County receiving old age security cash grants, received excess payments in the amount of $36 per month. It is undisputed that these overpayments (except those made to Sargent in November and December 1971) were due solely to administrative errors on the part of the counties involved.

Both named plaintiffs were notified by their respective counties that future monthly grants would be reduced to make up for these erroneous overpayments. Both plaintiffs thereupon individually requested an administrative hearing as provided for in sections 10950--10965. Decisions adverse to plaintiffs were entered by the defendant director on March 8, 1973, in Oliva's case and on November 22, 1972, in Sargent's case. Both decisions authorized the counties involved to offset the past overpayments as to which there had been full reporting by reductions in future cash grants over a period of six months. ⁴ Neither named plaintiff has sought judicial review of the adverse administrative decision. While their administrative hearings were pending and before the director's decisions noted above were entered, the instant proceeding was commenced.

I.

A recipient of welfare benefits who is dissatisfied with any action of the county relating to his receipt of aid may obtain a 'fair hearing' before a referee employed by the Department. (§§ 10950, 10953.) After receiving the referee's proposed decision, the director may adopt it (§ 10959) or may make an independent determination based on the hearing record. (§§ 10959--10961.) Section 10962 permits the recipient to seek judicial review of the director's final decision by a proceeding in administrative mandamus (Code Civ.Proc. § 1094.5).

Plaintiffs commenced these proceedings prior to the administrative determinations in their respective cases. Defendant argues that plaintiffs thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and are foreclosed by the administrative determinations against them which, in the absence of a proceeding for judicial review, become final one year after entry. (§ 10962.)

It is axiomatic that 'where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act.' (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 292, 109 P.2d 942, 949.) '(E)xhaustion of the administrative remedy is a jurisdictional prerequisite to resort to the courts.' (Id., at p. 293, 109 P.2d at p. 950.)

However, in Ramos v. County of Madera (1971) 4 Cal.3d 685, 94 Cal.Rptr. 421, 484 P.2d 93, the Court formulated a refinement of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies where class relief is sought in cases otherwise controlled by the procedures set forth in sections 10950--10965. In the Ramos case, plaintiffs, recipients of welfare aid, in behalf of themselves and a class similarly situated, sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages for the individually named plaintiffs for tortious acts allegedly committed by county welfare officials. The complaint was filed before the final determination of the administrative hearing requested by the named plaintiffs to contest termination of their welfare benefits. The Supreme Court pointed out that the procedure for hearing contained in sections 10950--10965 'is premised on an individualized treatment of claims for aid . . . In no section of this chapter (Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 10950--10965) is there provision for class relief. It is the Individual who must apply for a hearing, regarding His application for or receipt of aid. He must do so in person or through an Authorized representative. It is clear that the hearing scheme established by the Legislature does not contemplate class actions.' (Original emphasis.) (Ramos v. County of Madera, supra, at pp. 690--691, 94 Cal.Rptr. at p. 424, 484 P.2d at p. 96.) The Court concluded that there was 'no failure to exhaust an administrative Remedy for class relief, for no such administrative remedy existed.' (Original emphasis.) (Ibid.)

As in the Ramos case, the plaintiffs do not seek in this action to secure payment of welfare benefits. Rather, they seek declaratory and injunctive relief and mandate in order to establish the illegality of grant adjustments and to prohibit continued resort to that method of recouping overpayments due to administrative error where the recipient has fully reported. The provisions for hearing contained in the Welfare and Institutions Code no not provide for the relief sought by these plaintiffs. "Sections 10957 and 10961 refer merely to decisions by the department that a particular applicant is entitled to services or financial aid. Section 10963 requires the county welfare director to 'comply with and execute' such decisions, but they have no binding effect on the rights of future applicants." (Ramos v. County of Madera, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 691, fn. 5, 94 Cal.Rptr. at p. 425, 484 P.2d at p. 97, quoting from Diaz v. Quitoriano (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 807, 812 74 Cal.Rptr. 358.) "Threat of future action can only be inferred from that which occurred in the past. And if such past actions were illegal, and circumstances show that they are likely to reoccur, injunction (or mandate) is a proper remedy. . . ." (Ibid., quoting from Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 60 Cal.2d 276, 286, 32 Cal.Rptr. 830, 836, 384 P.2d 158, 164.)

Accordingly, we conclude that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable here and thus is not a jurisdictional bar to this action.

II.

Absent a statute so declaring, a recipient of public assistance is not liable for reimbursement of the state or county for welfare aid properly paid. (Ogdon v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 192, 199--200, 113 Cal.Rptr. 206, 520 P.2d 1022; Webb v. Swoap (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 191, 195, 114 Cal.Rptr. 897.) The Department has adopted regulations authorizing counties to use the grant adjustment method to recoup money paid erroneously through county administrative error even though the recipient has fully met his reporting responsibilities. ⁵ These regulations were promulgated under the director's statutory authority, consistent with the law fixing standards for the administration of public social services (§ 10604), 'to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced by the department' (§ 10554) through 'regulations . . . affecting the purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the department' (§ 10553).

'It is well established that administrative regulations must conform to applicable legislative provisions, and that an administrative agency has no discretion to exceed the authority conferred upon it by statute.' (California Welfare Rights Organization v. Brian (1974) 11 Cal.3d 237, 242, 113 Cal.Rptr. 154, 157, 520 P.2d 970, 973.) The parties disagree as to the existence vel non of statutory authority for the grant adjustment method of recoupment contained in the regulations of the department. Both sides to this action rest their respective arguments on divergent interpretations of section 11004. The preamble to that section requires that public assistance programs 'shall be administered fairly to the end that all persons who are eligible and apply for such social services shall receive the assistance to which they are entitled promptly, with due consideration for the needs of applicants and the safeguarding of public funds.' After providing that an applicant for or recipient of public...