Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs.

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 30, 2012
DocketYORap-12-17
StatusUnpublished

This text of Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs. (Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs., (Me. Super. Ct. 2012).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-12-17

PATRICIA A. SULLNAN,

Petitioner

v. ORDER

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent

This matter was heard on oral argument on Petitioner's SOC appeal. Petitioner

was present pro se and the State was represented by Assistant Attorney General Tracy

Quadro.

The role of the superior court on an SOC appeal is limited to reversing or

modifying an administrative decision if the findings or conclusions are unsupported by

substantial evidence on the whole record. 5 M.R.S. §11007(4)(C)(5). The agency's

factual determinations must be sustained unless shown to be clearly erroneous.

Imagineering, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991); Bisclwffv. Bd. of

Trustees, 661 A.2d 167, 170 (Me. 1995) (holding Law Court will not overturn conclusions

supported by competent and substantial evidence). Accordingly, absent a finding of

abuse of discretion, bias or error of law or findings not supported by substantial

evidence in the record as required by 5 M.R.S. §11007(C), the agency's actions must be

affirmed. There is competent medical evidence as well as receipt of unemployment

benefits to support the administrative decision so it is affirmed and the appeal is

denied.

At oral argument Patricia made it clear that her anxiety symptoms were

worsening and both the court and Assistant Attorney General Quadro indicated if her

condition had worsened since hearing she could certainly reapply for benefits.

However, as noted above on appeal this court does not substitute how it might

have decided a case but rather review if the decision was suppo_rted by evidence in the

record.

Accordingly, appeal denied.

The Clerk may incorporate this order in the docket by reference.

Dated: July i'o , 2012

John H. O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Patricia Sullivan, pro-se Tracy Quadro, Esq. 72 Greenwood Street Office of the Attorney General Eliot, ME 03903 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0006

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bischoff v. Board of Trustees
661 A.2d 167 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995)
Imagineering, Inc. v. Superintendent of Insurance
593 A.2d 1050 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sullivan v. Maine Dep't of Health and Human Svs., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-maine-dept-of-health-and-human-svs-mesuperct-2012.