The State of New York Justice
Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs [Justice Center] adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of an administrative law
judge [ALJ] made after a hearing. The ALJ had found that Petitioner committed category two
neglect as defined by Social Services Law §493(4)(b). Justice Center then denied Petitioner's request that the relevant substantiated
report of neglect be amended and sealed and Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 appealing the Justice Center's decision.
The Petitioner had exercised her right to a hearing before the ALJ but prior to the hearing, the Justice Center moved to preclude relitigation of the facts decided against the Petitioner during an earlier arbitration hearing conducted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement in effect between the New York State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities [OPWDD] and the Petitioner's union, at which the Petitioner was represented by the union's counsel and OPWDD was represented by the Justice Center.
Although Petitioner opposed the Justice Center's motion, the ALJ granted the Justice Center's motion, precluded the Petitioner "from relitigating the issues of whether she had a duty and breached her duty to provide adequate medical care to the Service Recipient and follow the Service Recipient's seizure protocols."
The evidentiary scope of the administrative hearing was thus limited to whether the Petitioner's breach of duty resulted in or was likely to result in physical injury or serious or protracted impairment of the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the service recipient and, if substantiated, whether the category level designated, category two neglect, was appropriate.
The ALJ determined that the Justice Center proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner committed an act of category two neglect. The ALJ's recommended decision was adopted in its entirety and the Petitioner's request to amend and seal the substantiated report was denied by the Administrative Law Judge of the Administrative Hearings Unit, who was designated by the Executive Director of the Justice Center to make such decisions. Petitioner commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding to review the Executive Director's determination.*
The Appellate Division, citing Ippolito v TJC Dev., LLC, 83 AD3d 57, ruled that the ALJ properly granted the Justice Center's motion to preclude Petitioner from relitigating the issues of whether she had a duty and breached her duty to provide adequate medical care to the Service Recipient as "The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration awards with the same force and effect as they apply to judgments of a court".
The court noted that the Justice Center met its burden of demonstrating that the identical issue was "necessarily decided in the prior [contract arbitration] proceeding and is decisive of the present proceeding and, in opposition, the [Petitioner] failed to demonstrate the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior [contract arbitration] determination."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division opined that "at the administrative hearing, the [Petitioner] was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the questions of fact that were resolved against her in the [contract] arbitration proceeding".
* The Appellate Division's decision notes: "At an administrative hearing to determine whether a report of category two neglect is substantiated, the Justice Center is required to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject committed abuse or neglect. Upon a review of such an administrative determination made after an evidentiary hearing, the determination of the Justice Center must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.