CABA GROCERY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1284-09T1

CABA GROCERY,

Appellant,

vs.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES,

DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES,

NEW JERSEY WIC PROGRAM,

Respondent.

__________________________________

November 24, 2010

Submitted: November 10, 2010 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Fisher.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Division of Health Services, Department of Health and Senior Services, Hearing No. 09-45.

William D. Feingold, attorney for appellant.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michael J. Kennedy, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Caba Grocery (Caba) filed an application to participate as a vendor in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program. It appeals from a final order of the Grant Appeals Board of the Department of Health and Senior Services that denied its appeal. We affirm.

In support of its application, Caba supplied a Commodity Price List (CPL) for comparison with other vendor-applicants. The WIC program rejected the application because Caba's prices were higher than other vendors. In the course of its administrative appeal, Caba conceded its prices exceeded those of other vendors and attempted to submit a new CPL with revised prices for consideration. The Grant Appeals Board rejected this new submission and held the WIC program correctly determined Caba's prices were not competitive and denied its application.

On appeal, Caba argues that the Grant Appeals Board erred when it failed to consider its revised CPL. We disagree and affirm.

Caba misapprehends the purpose of the administrative review process. As a proposed vendor, Caba sought review of a decision rejecting its application because its prices were higher than other applicants. The sole issue before the Grant Appeals Board was whether the agency properly found that Caba's prices exceeded those of other prospective vendors. An appeal is not the forum to submit new information. An appeal procedure reviews the record before the decision-maker; it is not an opportunity to amend an initial application.

Caba conceded its prices were "rather high," and it submitted no information that the agency decision is not supported by the record or not in conformity with the regulations governing the program. We, therefore, affirm the agency decision. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.