Peters v. Shapiro
| Decision Date | 25 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. CV,CV |
| Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
| Parties | George PETERS v. Bernard SHAPIRO, Welfare Commissioner. 14-688-37575. |
Neal Ossen, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Arthur Hiller, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and Francis J. MacGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).
On April 16, 1968, the plaintiff, the recipient of aid as a needy blind person (see 49 Stat. 647, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1206 (Sup. IV, 1969)), made application to the state welfare department for 'requested payment of dental work.' He claimed that a tooth underneath a bridge on his right lower jaw was decayed; that to 'alleviate this condition his bridge must be removed, the decayed tooth extracted, another tooth added to the bridge and the bridge hooked on to a new tooth.' He complained that 'whenever he drinks a cold or hot beverage the pain is so intense that he must use a pain killing drug prescribed by his medical doctor.' On April 27, 1968, the commissioner of welfare denied the plaintiff's request for payment of such dental work.
Aggrieved by the decision of the welfare commissioner, the plaintiff filed a request for a fair hearing (§ 17-2a), and on June 17, 1968, a hearing was held at the Hartford district office by a hearing examiner authorized by the commissioner to conduct such a hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, a social worker connected with the welfare department testified that 'it is our understanding that approval is seldom given for partial dentures such as were requested.'
On July 15, 1968, the hearing officer handed down his decision, in which he held that '(t)he denial of * * * the appellant's request for a fixed bridge is upheld.' The decision seems to have been based upon a staff directive and upon an exparte report of the department's dental consultant, who 'considers that the appellant has adequate teeth at present.'
In appraising the transcript before the hearing examiner, in respect to the issues we decide, we are in the same position as the trial judge, for the evidence before the hearing examiner is before us in the form in which it was presented to the trial judge. Our review of the proceedings must be confined to the record made at the administrative hearing. That the scope of the review is narrowly circumscribed is beside the point; the courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review.
In approaching the problem posed by this case, we recognize the continuing vitality of Mr. Justice Holmes's oft-quoted remark: 'The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.' Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75, 25 S.Ct. 539, 546, 49 L.Ed. 937 (dissenting opinion). Nor is it our intention 'to pass 'from the narrow confines of law into the more spacious domain of policy." Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 318 U.S. 80, 99, 63 S.Ct. 454, 464, 87 L.Ed. 626 (dissenting opinion). Nevertheless, '(a)s the federal social security legislation is an attack on recognized evils in our national economy, a constricted interpretation of the phrasing by the courts would not comport with its purpose.' United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 712, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 1467, 91 L.Ed. 1757; see Celebrezze v. Bolas, 8 cir., 316 F.2d 498, 500; Kohrs v. Flemming, 8 cir., 272 F.2d 731, 736; Randall v. Flemming, D.C.,192 F.Supp. 111, 120. We recognize that at a hearing before an administrative officer, the strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equitey are not controlling. See New Milford Water Co. v. Watson, 75 Conn. 237, 247, 52 A. 947, 53 A. 57. The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative agencies from the compulsion of technical rules so that matters may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springer v. Norton
...157 A.2d 762. It must afford a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can reasonably be inferred. Peters v. Shapiro, 5 Conn. Cir. 603, 606, 260 A.2d 133. A review of the record in this case shows that the memorandum of the hearing officer falls short of the statutory standar......
-
Lindy v. Welfare Commissioner
...by 'substantial and competent evidence' as required by § 17-2b(b) of the General Statutes. This case is very similar to Peters v. Shapiro, 5 Conn.Cir. 603, 260 A.2d 133, decided by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, in which the plaintiff, a needy blind person, applied to the stat......