Zobriscky v. Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 22 November 1972
• Citation: 28 Cal.App.3d 930,105 Cal.Rptr. 121
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Roger C. ZOBRISCKY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. Civ. 39724.

Page 121

105 Cal.Rptr. 121

28 Cal.App.3d 930

Roger C. ZOBRISCKY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.

Civ. 39724.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Hearing Denied Jan. 17, 1973.

Daniel S. Brunner, San Pedro, and Valerie Vanaman, Long Beach, for petitioner and appellant.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, and Louis B. Hays, Deputy County Counsel, for respondents.

FLEMING, Associate Justice.

Roger C. Zobriscky applied to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services for general relief. ¹ When the Department denied his application and refused his request for an evidentiary hearing to contest the denial, Zobriscky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, petitioned the trial court to mandate the County, the Department, and the departmental director to hold an evidentiary hearing on his application. The trial court denied his petition. ² Zobriscky has appealed the judgment of denial, contending the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles him to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his application for general relief. In support of his position he cites Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, which holds that due process of law requires a 'fair hearing' before welfare payments may be terminated.

The issue is whether as a matter of constitutional law Zobriscky is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in connection with the denial of his application for public welfare benefits. This issue is not directly controlled by the ruling in Goldberg, for the latter only compels a hearing when existing welfare payments are being terminated. Said the Supreme Court: 'The question for decision is whether a State that Terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to Termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Italics ours.) (T)he crucial factor . . . is that Termination (italics ours) of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an Eligible (italics in original) recipient of the very means by which to live which he waits.' (397 U.S. at pp. 255, 264, 90 S.Ct. at p. 1014.) The court's opinion makes clear that the court focused its attention on termination of an established welfare benefit and did not consider procedure for the denial of a welfare benefit in the first instance. (See also, Daniel v. Goliday (1970) 398 U.S. 73, 90 S.Ct. 1722, 26 L.Ed.2d 57.) Although one federal district court has interpreted Goldberg to require an evidentiary hearing whenever an application for a welfare benefit has been denied (Barnett v. Lindsay, 319 F.Supp. 610, 612 (D.C.Utah 1970)), we are not persuaded by the district court's opinion that Goldberg is to be so interpreted. ³ In our view the necessity for an evidentiary hearing to deny an application for welfare benefits remains open.

Modern government offers its citizens a wide spectrum of benefits, including public employment, public contracts, public education, tax exemptions, loans, subsidies, franchises, and licenses of all kinds. In view of the number, sweep, and scope of these benefits we do not believe an evidentiary hearing can be routinely required each time an application for one of those benefits is denied. Were the law otherwise the resulting burden on government would be overwhelming. For example, an affidavit in the case at bench indicates that in the County of Los Angeles alone over 7000 applications for general relief are received each month, of which less than 1000 are accepted. Thus, the grant of Zobriscky's petition would mandate over 6000 evidentiary hearings such month in the County of Los Angeles for this one benefit offered by government. The resulting increase in the cost of administration of the general relief program brought about by the cost of such hearings would necessarily reduce the net amount of moneys available for general relief purposes, and in this sense mandatory evidentiary hearings would...