Me Dep't of Health & Human Serv V. Wood

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ST ATF. OF M.\f'JE ANDROSCOUUJ.'<, ss. )LTPF.RlOR COURT CJVJL ACJJ0-'1 Dockd -'lo_ .\P"l3-:2 i\fAfi\-F. DEPi\RT\!E-'IT OF 1-lLA.L lU AND lllJMA-'1 :O:ERVICES DIVJ5JON OF SUPPORT ENFORCL\1L-'IT AND RECOVERY, Petitioner •r:O & f\lE_D RECEI,V '-~10'.1 1 lj 2\l\~ ;.,ND_R.,C~ v_ co~G'"-~ SUP'c;K<(JR ORDLH c0u'RT __ _ .'-..1JC11ALL T. \VOOD und LOKRlL.MOHll<, Hespondents This matter is heti1re the conn on Petitioner Main~ Department of Health and H11man Swi!CC'> D1V1S10n of Support Lnforcement ami Recovery's ("' JJSF.R'") RLile SOC appeal "f the Decision of the \1aine Department oi Health and !Iuman Services Div1sion of Administrative Hcanng' ("'D,\H'') Emling that Respondent Michael Wood was not required to pay child support dllnng the tunc when he lived v,ith hl.< other child who received Supplemental Secunt} Income (SSI). DSliR is aski11g thatlh1s court reverse the deci,i<m m"-de hy DAH, ill!d find the1t D A!-!'.< deci.,ion demonstrates an error oflaw and is in violallon uf the statute, and modifr the decision with regard to \1/ood·, dnld support debt. T orrie :vlonn, the cnstod1 al parent, hJs joined DSF:R 's "-Preal u r D, \H' s Decision. Mr. V/ood ha, oppmed DS ER. s Appeal. This coun held"- heaTing <•n tCn> matter on /1-by 7, 2014_ 1 F'-lctual and Procedural Background Yl:r. Wood and Ms . .Morin ·were pre.,iously married and they have rvv·o daughters logt:Lher: 'v!iranda \Voud, burn S~ptcmbcr 10, 1996, and Cordelia Wood, hom em \1ar 9, ~'JQQ_ (L;.,_ j).] l .) When iliey -~:,orced on Ocwbcr 14 ::oG~, :Vk W-Joci wJ_, a\\an1eJ pnm~rv r~SJdCn~iai C:JfC of their ~hiJJren_ (fd I . 5} .-\~ Lhe ll"lC <' f t!Je d:, "fCC jwik~ncnt tbe panj~s "-breed Llhit Mr. \l,"ooC v,ou~d not nct:o (;,;:,\ <t;;JpOrt. '.l~x. fl-1 2·3) On Sc~Lemher! l. 2005. huwcnor, '.i".e cour'. i.<suel! an ln:erim Cl~1id Supp,,rr Orckr rrovld;ng: tbll -'Yfc. WooJ wa.1 to p~y Ms C.,1m-in $ 7 Ul(l penveek i(lr ~11ilc: .<11pp0r:: coa:menc i 'lg on SeDtember l <S. 2 00~. (Cox. D-2 6. 8.) On October 17., 200S, the wun: "ntcred Jn Order An:cmiing D',-orce Judgme:ll with anmcurromted Clllid Suppon Orrkr wbert:O;-· Mr. W<'od', chlid SHN•or. ubiigation i:J~re~sed $n.::20 ~"'week comm~ncir;g on Octoher 14, ~'.)05 l<' ~cplinl for IJHIJS':; chi IG "lPP<'I1 cn!Orccmer:I r,Ls sen.-ic,·~- l_l-~ l-4; R. ."it 7_) _'Vfo. Morm (l m-:! al 6. I :Vir \Vood has d .Jon wilb ~m-ail Frederick- Wond. 'vlichocl fr~den~k-Wood Wil.< bom pn September 2g. 200'i. (R. 115.) Mr. Wood has live(! \Vilh his son continuously, except for an approximately 12 -mon lb-period \then 'Yir_ Wood and _\f.J. Frederick-W uod v.-ere separated. (R at 9-\ 0; Dec 2: Fx. C; Ex_ B } Michael Frd.cr'c:k Wood >tan:cd receiving disabilny bcnefl L~ i:J )) c~emher of 2006 illld h<:~s conunued to recci vc Lhern. ( R_ ar 6.) Michael Frederick ';Jv' ood r~cen·es $1 0 00 per :JlOJlth in S t.ate S uppkmcm payment>. 'md Ms F r~deri~k- \l,' ood repr~oemed th~r Mich:Jel Fr~derick-Wood rcceivts Social Security_ (Rat R.) r~·n±Ortunately. the Record is less than clear rcgardi ng lhc e;;:ad nature of tlce chi id '.< bcneti Ls. At the admi niso·at1 ve he~nng, lhc Hearing Officer >tat~d tJw.t h< "d 1dn' t wam to bother to get'' the p>lj'en\·Ork ccgard "'g 1\f'tchael Frcde~ick- Woo<!' s c1; <,abJiity her:dils i ntu the record. ( R. at 9.) "So tr.~:·s going to he a stipuiated iact then that wntnuuusly si:~~e December 2006:' (:Z at 9) 2 :Vhch~cls [."c] been rtcci\'ing SS! bencf1ts On Jul \ I 0, 20 1J, DHHS '·"ued ~ JmtiG~ 0f dc'ol lc> \ [ r _W nod stating thai from October 14,2004 to July 10, 2013 he '''"d 521.9.15.40 JUr unpmd child 'upport JOr his lwn daughler<;. and that Ins debl was continuing lc> accrue by . . 578.~0 per week. (HO F-.::. J 3.) .-\tier Mr. \1i ood reque.1ted a11 appeal oflhe nol1ce of debt, illl admini!.tmtive review wao conducted purouant to 19-A M_R_S_A, § .:!451. ,\hearing was held on Au gus! 7, 21)13 whcr~ Cindy Peterson appe:tred on khalf of DHITS. Mr_ Wood and 1\-k Frederick- Wood appeared on beh~lf of Mr. Wnod (Ms. J-'rcdcnck-W uod acted as his representative), and Ms. Morin appeared as the custodial parent (Tie c. 1; K at 1 ) The hcanng: wa~ conduetcJ to detem1ine the amoum MMr Wood's net child 'upport debt as nf July !0. 2011 (Dec. !.) In ln> Decisicm, the Hearing Onicer noted that "The parties agreed to Lhe total amount of' 'vfr. \Vood' s child suppolt obligation unJ~r the various child support orders, and agreed to the total child support payments made by .'vir. \\'ood, and agreed that th~ Dl ll!S .'1 otice of' Debt retlectcd those amounts." (Dec. at 3 _) The toml dnld support obi igation ('Without any exemption') was SJ I ,876_80, and the amount paid by 1\lr. Wood was $9,931.40 leming a total potcntwl d~ht of$21,945.40 (Fx_ 05: Ex. JJ0-3 3; Dec. 2; R. at 2, 7.) The Hearing Oilicer came to the condu.<ion that rather than owing a debt ot over l'Wenty -thousarul dollars, :>-lr. W ooJ ha., actually paid $498_00 more tilan he owed in child supporL (Dec. 2-4.) Th~ Hearing Officn dctennined that lvlr. Wood had overpaid, because of a regulatOT) exemption !haL was in effect nnl1l Feb mary 3. 20 13, which he found applicable to Mr. \\' ood ba.<ed on Michad FredcTick- \\' ood' s r~cei pt of Social Sec uri l} _(Dec. 3-4 _) The Hearing Of5.cn J(mnd that DSLR had failed w address the issue of retroactivity. and thatlhe r~penl oi !he exemption Jid not have retruacm,e effecl. (Dec 3) li S!:iCldc.rJoi-Rev!~w -·-- :n its ap-:1eClate capacit;-·. the error of h w, or fir:Umt(' :wr ~o:.t~l r~vinv.< su;cro~d agency ckcis10ns for '·abu-;e of uiscrdior.. Oy C1e evidence .. Ranxeiey ("rossrouu\ Coal. v Lmd L'se Reg. Cumm "n. 2003 \Jf '15. ~ I !l, ~55 A2d /~J. Th~ i'Hrdcu of proof'' on the pC!it;oner to rrovc !lo<!l ·•no ~on,pctcnt cviC~nc~ suppon:s t!1c i agency·, I Jecision illlll that the reconi compels a contrary concluswn .. F!inhorfv lvfaitiC Stale Ra .)Ys., I\() I A2J 1(,7, 170 r_Me_ l ~951. '·)nconsi 'tent cvuler.ce wdl not render an ."lgenc y Jeci s ion un_,upportcJ'' id. '"Jm1gc' m:1;· not _<ubsiituk their jmlgmccrt for !hal of the gi,·e rise ro mnr~ ,,~ency merely because the evidence couid them one rc>dt •· Gulick v !ld of Envtl. !'rOI.. 452 A.2d 120:. 1209 (Me. 1n2J The coun must g1vc ~7 eat dd(,rence to 'm agency's ccmstl1lCtJOn of a statute it :s charge<; wilh Jdmimstering. Rangeley Crossroads r:oa!., 200R ME 115, ~ 10,955 A.2d 223 ''A couct will 'not ,-acme an exceeds !h~ ~gcucy·_, decision unless it· violates the Consl!tution or statutes; agency's authori t; ; is procedurally unlmvful: is arbitrary or capricious; commutes Xl abtt>e of dJ,cretion, JS affected by bias or"-" error or law; or is unsupponed by the evidence in the' rec0rd."' Kroer;er v Oq 'r uj FnvironPJentall'rU!., 2005 .'v:!E 50, 117, 870 A.2d 566) (quotcU in Aiex,mJer . .Hame Appe/lme Prncrico § 452 at 3 i ?_(4th ell_ 20JJ)). Where tl1erc ba ;~ been mL:ltipk lc;e Is o:' administran ve Jecision-makin g, the most r:cent dc~ision maker had de W1lJ be tl1c ~avo on~ >ubjcctto Sup~rior Court r~v1ev... if the cr.ost recent Geciswr,- cap2.city and/or the autl-.ority !o conduct IH1Jitior:al tan-finding. ~ee Akxander, kfainf Appdim< Practiu !) 455h) ?.t 315·, see uiso roncerned ritizens lo Save Roxbury v. iJd dFti'J!i Pror., 2011 \1L 39, ~ 17,15 A 3d !263_ ][]_- - - - Tlisc'JS>Hm 4 A. Standing ,\,an has cited (<' initi~l Se~ti0n pertinent part motter, \lr 1 ,1/oml has ll 00 1(:) ot' C\Jainc regardin~ pann~rsh1p, lhc issue of J.lSfR"s <t:mding. Mr. Wood Ac~:ninis1rative Pwcedur~s agency nctions that ·'an;· rer'ml V>ho nclion silalll.'e enlitled to jt:dicial review by thic, .0\hchapter"' ra~>~d ~MRS..\.~ th~r~oi in lbc act, which provides in ~s a~grievcd by final Jgency Superior Coun in the manner ]1T'"·iJ~d 11001(1) ..'\. pcrso11 is defined a.c, '·any mdrvilhml, corporatwn, govcmmcntal entity. association or puhlic or pnva1c or~anizmion of any character, other than tlte agency conducting the procccJing." 5 ~I.K S.A. § 8002(8). \fr. Wood has seized upon thi1 defimt1on, to .'late that DSLR cmuwt appeal the !Tearing Oflicer's Tleci sion. VIr. W nod has aho ~r!ed to dida "' Fores/ .t.'co/ogy ,VeMork v. rand Use Regulaiwn Comm'n. 2012 ME 36, ,. 21. 3'! A.3d 74 and F1ch1er v. Ed oj'Enwl. Prof. 604 ,'\..2d 433, 436 (Me. 1992) to argue that an agenc~ cannot appeal its own adjudicatory decision. DSFR has arg;ucd that (his case 1S d!Stmguishable, however, sin~e the agency '" acting on !vis . .\lori.n 's behaif. Under 'v1ainc law~ person may apply to DHHS lo pursu~ enfOrcement or a chdd support order on her behalf. See 19-A M.R.S.A § 21 03{2).' Sce1ion 230 1{2) provides: FN ;J.ctions i11i tiated pur"umt to s~ctiun 21 03, failure to pay support obligations under a .support ordn cremes a debt due the applicant Tfpon execution ol' a contract het" eer. lhe department and the applicant, the depanment rna} take action to cslahh.'h, eni(Jr~e or collec1 the debt under any appropr'ate >latutc, mcludmg, but not lumted to. The statute pro"des m per~inent part: The departmer.l LllJ), for a lc", locale ,,b,cnt racem>, defend child supporr ordc:·s. establd1 suppcrr obhgatwns. se~k ;,wtio~s lo mud' fy \llppnrt ohiigatOons, enforce .>uprort obl1 gat1ons anC detcrrmnc pate:'"Ll\ on behalf ot applicants who ace r.u( rccipiC:>L:. ofpub!i~ as;i;lm~~, J)' ,lC(i,ms ~m:cr :.n apr,Jpria'.c .<tamtc, "'cl'Jdtng, bu! not i:Jr.Jced to, remed1es established Ln subch,pter 2, article 3, lO C>l«bl:ol. and cnf,>rce 'he supporr ot!Jgations l Q-A M.R.S A. § 21 03(2). rernedic·s cont:,jJJc<~ in ~h:s :n:itie. The der.<utmen•_ '-s subrogated to the rigilts olrb~ yaFe ao JHO\idecl in oc·ction 7351. pa,-e!l: 0\\c.\ a debt "r.G :terc lS a ,,apport order rn ;;lace. Moine law pruviUcs thaL DHlJS l! il m rl:~ c>rt~er to pUr.<ue ~:1)' su~1po:l acLion or aJmmi otr ctli vc re;nuiy to sc~ urc paym~o( of the dch1 oc~rucd or dccruing untln sc~l:on 2301 and to ~ntOrce the order.'"§ 1J '>1(1). ln aJd:t10n, C-ectJoJl ~ 151 (:) iimhcr specifies. '·Ttc Jepm tmcnt j, not reauired t<' file ~ mCJllon to intervene or }oin i:l o.nv cCJUTL proceeding w subrogde Jt.<elf ICJ the rights oftl1c payee ~nd to Jt treawd 'lS a pany in ~ny f-.JrLher proceedCngs regarding !he .<<.~ppmt orcier."" JJSFR hus dernonsrrated Lhat it is "JbroEM~d DecJsJOll of"the to ~lC ri@,htc ofM.s Monn. and. there lOr, 1t has standing tD appeal tbe ]--karin~ Officer to !his court_ H. Cbild Support Debt This di spule im olYes: l ) a change in tbc regubtions regarding ccdkction of child sup)JOrl ~nJ 2) ho>Y tlto~e regulations and the _<tatuLe should be interpreted ~nd applied regarding \-lr. Wood's ch1ld support obligation. ] he Main~ Child Support l-'nforc"mcnt ,\!annal, ICI- I 44 C.M.R Ch. 35 l, contain~ DHI JS' regulatJOns regarding JJSFR The Maine Child Suppon Entorccmenl ManJal '1 lw Ocport:nent may not collect cbild .<uppon [rom ~ rc.<ponsible parent who rec~ivcs S upnlemental Secarity lncmnc (S Sl) or who provides primary res!denual care for lL< orC,cr O\H, child v.ho receives SST. The DepaF..rnent m~y not enforce a ch!ld support obligallon that o.ccrues during a pericd when the responsible pHrem is exempt from collection achon due to receipt of SSI. I IJ-' -14 C. .'vi R. Cn __;5 i C h _'; 9 R(rcpealcC eif". F~hnmry 3, 2013)_ As of" the t:me of Li:tc hec.c'.ng, :l;c nanaal r.o longer 'mciutkd tl1c afc'rememioned senion_ ;I pn>nded that: When a reopon,ibk p<1rcnt rec~i\e~ pLtblic 'IS;Lstance tnr rhe benefit or h',s L>r hcT dllld, or receive., oupplclll,'ntill ,ecumy income (SSI), the reSDOES!blc parents' suppor: 6 ,,bhgatio~ i.< auwmaticGJly suspended. The automol1~ >Uspen,i<m ends and the CJb!ig:Jlior. rcwmes ol ~be sarnc level, at which it was suspemlcJ. tvm weeks afier the r~sponsible parmt SlOP' c~c~ivmg public asaistance N SSl. [19-A M.R.S.A. § 2302) A debt pre,·iously incunc·J under 1~-A M_R.S.A. § 2301 may not be collecteJ Jrom a responsible parcm while that parent reccl\'C> public assistance or SSl except that such a deht may be collectc<: from nonrecurring lump sum income, (lS delin~d in f'itle 2:2_ Jecliun 3762, 'ubscct10n ll, pmagraph A, ,,j a rcsron.<iblc parent whik that pa1enl io :tn assi 'leU obligor. I .ump ;um income :ndu des, bu l i~ not lirmk:d to, personal mj ury award<_ lo!lcry winning_,_ inhcr;twK~s :1nd tax refundo. l il-144 C.M.R. Ch. ~51 Ch. "; § I (A).' As Mr Wood does not receive ~ithcr public as<!Stance lor the bene til of his child or SSL J;js child 'upper: ohligatwn i' not suspended unJcrthe reg:Jlalwn. S~ction 2302 of the s\.llull' contains oimilar langUllf'C !·or the period dur;ng which an obligor IS an assisted obligor and for 2 weeks then:aftcr, the as'"tcd obligm'< child support obligation i.< auwmatically suspended. Al th~ end of tbe 2 weeks, the obhgor' s child .'upport obi i gallOn resumes autornaticaJiy at the same level at which it was suspended unless metdilicJ by an order entered pursuant to subsection J. A dehl prcvwusly incmr~d under section 2301 may not be collected from a responsib!G parent whli~ thal parent is an assisteJ obligor, except that such a debt may C.: colleded from nonrecu n;ng lump sum income, as de fined m '1 itle 22, sCCl!On 3762, subsection 11, paragraph A, ol' a r~sponsible parent while thm parent i' an assisted obligor. 19-A M.R.S A 9 2302(2)- The statute defines assisted obligor to mean: :m o hl1gor under a court or admini 'irati vc chilci 'upport order who receives: (l) ::,upplem~ntal security income: or (2) Public as,i,Lanc~ for the benefit of a chilC: of that obligor {C) 'Public a"istancc'' has tbe same meaning as set tOrth in .<ecnon2101, subsection 11, excep'. that it does nolm~iudc medical car~ only. Si~ce :hs arpeal wa_; fLied, t!-,e T-'g"iallOllS "e1e l'Q~c ~~anl anenr'd on J-Jiy 12. 2GC4. Since the ,,sue Ccfore the coun io ;\-fr Wood'' ct-,iJd :;u1:ro11 deCll oblifation a; of July :o_ 2013, the ~h"nge to tl'e r">~ula:1ons LS no I rcb·an' to this appeal 7 ~ayme:lb and meci;~aJ c·are fiucmheJ to 01' ,m l!chal roJ dcpenJcnt_ duldrtn by the Swtc lr far lhG hene!iL of a chiid. § ~301(1)( '\.). The hearing oHiccr ~onsJJered wbctilcr tl1e deletion 144 C \·1 R. Ch 351 or the previ<JU> sccti on 8 from CO .5 appl ieJ rrtroacti ve1} , so Lhat OHliS could col!e~l J ll- child Sllpporl bcn~fi~o 3 Cne heari:1g oftic~r cam~ In lh<' conclnswnthat the repeai of,:eCiicln 8 Jid not apply rerroadvel}, as '"!here is nothing in th ,.u]e to indicate thm 1! h<id rel!:o!lC!JYC ef!ect_ '(Dec 3.) The Law Coun has held that ahscnt language tu the COlltiill'}-- legislatior. afliecting procedural or remedial rig!Jls legi~Jation atfecung 'Ubotantive ngbls oh01ild b~ applied prospectively. We uiso apply the rule .. _ that all staUlles will be considered to !Jaw i'l pmspectivc operation only. unJc.,s Ihe legl.,]ati\e illtCnt to tbe contra!"} is clearly n:pressed or neC~>sarily implied frorn tile language used. snnuiJ be applied retroacti,·eJy. whereas In re Guurdianship o.f' Jeremiah T, ~009 MF 74, 111g, 976 A 2d 955 (quowtions onuttedt ,\ frcr ddcnnin·.ng that the r~pcal of section 8 d1d not haYe r~tr.Jaclivc effect, the !:~ann g ofRcer Iotaled the arnount;; owcJ by Mr. Wood and came to his conclusion that M.r. W<'od had pay d1ild WppO<~ toMs_ Me>rm, and ~net probibi~eci Nls_ "-I,>rir• from cnf"rcmg lhc child suppon dcbr against 'Ylr. Wood See ii).J44 C.MR Ch. 3';1 (;h_S § S {repealed dT. February 3. 20 i .') J J'L,r:hcmor~, DSLR cunlct:ds th~t the Flcliring Offker'' interoreta~or. of sectionS fl~cacJse _\-! r. Wuod w~s noi Iinn f. w 1111 lvLchael Fred ericK W"''" fro"' 5 ·28 1C io 6; I;] 3, tk re:,'var.t pe•iod u corlle:ll'on as to -.,het~ecur :roc V.r Wood 8 ow~' child s·.ppon is 12/1:'06 to 5,'27/12_ wrmk' unpcrrnissibly ckny .\is. Monn he: righLlo rccci;,·e chile! suppmi as 'llpponed b} come order :md sCatute. DSLR is ncm J.cling on \fs Morin's behali-J.rld is no long~r constro_inccl Jy the lonner '"cli<'ll 8. Section 21 02 pro>: ides ·.hat: l he oNigce may enjorc-t the nghi of support "fWn>/ rhe ohligor, and the Sidle or any puli tical whcl1 V!S!O!l of the State may proceed on beha1 t' ol the obligee to enforce that right of support against the obhgor. \Vhen the State LJr a -politiCal subdi~i,ion of the State litrmshcs supprmto an obligee, 11 has the .1ame right as the obligee to \vhom the support wa~ furni' hed, lOr the purpon· of securing ill1 a ward tOr pml wpport anJ or obtaining continuing support. 19-A \1 R.S.A. § 2102 (emphasis added)_ C1ting 19-A \1 R S.A. §§ 2202(1), 1652(2)(0)3), 7.005, and 2302. ll~FR abo per,uas:vcly orgue' Lhat the llearing Officer·s inkrprctation ofth~ rule would impcnnissibly contravene th~ slatutory 'chemc that custodia! -parents receiv~ dnld support, a' well as the speci fie .;tatutc th~t penains to !he impact of SSI bene !its on child support Section 2302(:?) pertains speci fie ally to oilligors who receive SSJ or public assi qance for the bene li l of a child. See § 7.302( 1)(A). l he Statute docs not create an exception for obligors wh() children who recei\e SSI The COtlrl ~ r~siclc with 2302(1)(;\), (2). linUs DSER"' argnmc:Jts per,ua>i ve, and find' that the llearin~ Decision \\·as based on an error of law and m vwlation etf 'latutory proYision~ 0 J1iccr · s Ms. Mori11 's rightw receive chile! 'upport as es:ahli.<hcd Dy conn order was never o_fi"ectecl by the prior ru:c, whkh p~nmncd to Dill IS 'pceifically ... The Deporrm~nl may no/ co/leer child mpporl . fhe {)qmrtmenl may nor Cb.5 ~ e'!fo~ce a child supporr obligation, __ " 10-144 C.M.R. Ch_ 351 R (rcpGaicd dl February 3. 2013) (emrhasis addeJ). The child support 1\lonn cominued to ow~U to Ms. accrue, and DSF.R, wh!Ch is now w1constraind b,- the former rule, may act on l:er hebalrto colkct thJ.t child support GehL 9 Acordingly- OJ fic~r til~ ~our! ORDJ::RS that Pclition~r s _\f'pcal is GT-L\" .c- · "[l'D ,- __ . ·. ·V'"'R'f:D:cnd:he."'n,\cCo fDeh~,slTPHFLD 1 ·i DecJs"'n ' Rlo '- - " . The c]e,.k ;, dJrecrcc! to mcorporate' '- 'lrder in" :L~ Cocker b;-]r, ,_ .,.. '" 1 . Mmtlc Ruk. ,-,1 · 1 1 Proced:Jre 79(a). 10 fheP.~aring r~fer~nce pur,u:o::Jl ;o Docket No 1-.F .1 :;_ 12 .AC!1on Ma1ne SOC P.npea, ~ept of health and HurT.an Se:v1~as 'JS lvlichaei T Wood Lom L Monn "0 Bcx 591 Satattus ME 04230 Plaintr'f s .A.ctorney Defendant"s Attorney "'enn,fer Huston. Esc; .-".sst . .::..tmrney General 6 State c;ouse Station Ac~gusta ME D4333 lvl2tcnew Uyeo Esc; :Michael Pine ~ree Legal ASSistance "0 Box 398 L8WIStOI1 ME 04243 Date of <::nt,-y 2C13 Oct 7 Recerved 10-07-13 ?ent1on for Judicia,· C<eview of :=rnal Agency Action filad Oct 16 Rece1ved '8-16-13· Return marl ce~:ficaie of rece1pt for Michael Vl/ooc. Oct 23 Morin. and DHHS filed Rece1ved 10-28-13· Certified Record from DHHS filec Oct 28 ~81l"i Or 10-28-13 \Jo!lce and 8nefl'lQ Scheoule filed Appellants bnef is dL·e o~ or before Cop1es cna1led 10-28-13. :lee 9 De~err-ber 9 2013 Recerved 12-09-13: "e!lnoner s Brief filed. 2G14 Jar 3 Received 01-03-14 ."'espondent. Michael Woods Mot1o~ for E1lar~emen: oi Time tc F:le Bne: file8 ;::~try oi Apoearance of Matthew Dyer. Esq ;or M1c~ael Wood ~ar On0"-03-'4 Order on Motio~ for Enla'~er:1ent ~f Tirre ":led. (Ke;"lnocy. ~; "'espondent M:c."lael \Nood s;,all :lave unti' Ja:lusr;23 2014 to f11e Copies tc ;oart1es on 1-6-14 6 Page i ~1s :mef J~'Y}

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.