The Janet Napolitano Governor OAH Cliff J. Vanell Director Vol. 38 February 2006 www.azoah.com Official Newsletter of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Researching Decisions on the OAH Website Cliff J. Vanell, Director Search By: case number Judge agency date range party text For an example, see page 2 The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) began operations on January 1, 1996. Administrative Hearings previously provided by regulatory agencies (except those specifically exempted) are now transferred to the OAH for independent proceedings. Our statutory mandate is to “ensure that the public receives fair and independent administrative hearings.” The process of unifying the administrative hearings function in OAH-style agencies began in 1945 with California. The current American states and cities, and Canadian provinces, having adopted the model, with year of inception are: Alabama (1998); Alaska (2004); Arizona (1996); California (1961); City of Chicago (1997); Colorado (1976); Florida (1974); Georgia (1995); Iowa (1986); Kansas (1998); Louisiana (1996); Maine (1992); Maryland (1990); Massachusetts (1974); Michigan (1996); Minnesota (1976); Missouri (1965); New Jersey (1979); New York City (1979); North Carolina (1986); North Dakota (1991); Oregon (1999); South Carolina (1994); South Dakota (1994); Tennessee (1975); Texas (1991); Washington D.C. (1999); Washington (1981); Wisconsin (1978); Wyoming (1987); and Province of Quebec ( ). Mission Statement: We will contribute to the quality of life in the State of Arizona by fairly and impartially hearing the contested matters of our fellow citizens arising out of state regulation. 2nd Quarter Statistics At A Glance Step 2. Select the Administrative Law Judge: Acceptance Rate: ALJ findings of fact and conclusions of law were accepted in 90.66% of all Administrative Law Judge Decisions acted upon by the agencies.* ALJ Decisions, including orders, were accepted without modification in 83.65% of all Administrative Law Judge Decisions acted upon by the agencies. 50% of all agency modification was of the order only (i.e. penalty assessed). Appeals to Superior Court: There were 23 appeals filed in Superior Court. Rehearings: The rehearing rate was .84%, defined as rehearings scheduled (6) over hearings concluded (710).** Completion Rate: The completion rate was 110.9%, defined as cases completed (1785) over new cases filed (1610). Step 3. Select the Registrar of Contractors: Continuance: The average length of a first time continuance based on a sample of cases (first hearing setting and first continuance both occurred in the 2nd quarter) was 52.9 days. The frequency of continuance, defined as the number of continuances granted (292) over the total number of cases first scheduled (1607), expressed as a percent, was 18.2%. The ratio of first settings (1909) to continued settings on the calendar (364) was 1 to 0.33 Dispositions: Hearings conducted: 52.5%; vacated prior to hearing: 45.4%; hearings withdrawn by the agency: 2.1%. Contrary Recommendations and Agency Response: 15.6% of Administrative Law Judge Decisions were contrary to the original agency action where the agency took a position. Agency acceptance of contrary Administrative Law Judge Decisions was 84.44%. * 3.96% of Administrative Law Judge Decisions were certified as final by the OAH due to agency inaction or were rendered moot by settlement. ** Cases which were vacated or which settled on the day of hearing are not included. (continued from page 1) Step 4. Select the search method and term: Example: Finding decisions written by Adminstrative Law Judge Michael L. Barth in Registrar of Contractors hearings dealing with broken tiles: Step 1. Go to www.azoah.com and scroll down to “Search Administrative Law Judge Decisions” “Full Text Searching” (continued on page 4) page 2 Administrative Law Judge Decision moot 1.06% Agency Response to Administrative Law Judge Decisions October 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005 700 Agency rejects the Administrative Law Judge Decision 2.24% 609 600 500 Administrative Law Judge Decision certified as final upon agency inaction 2.90% Agency amends order only 6.73% cases 400 300 200 Agency accepts without modification 80.34% Agency amends findings of fact/conclusions of law only 6.73% 100 51 51 17 22 8 0 Agency accepts without Agency amends findings modification of fact/conclusions of law only Agency amends order only Agency rejects the Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Decision moot Decision certified as final Decision upon agency inaction Average Time Between Selected Events - Appealable Agency Actions v. Contested Cases*, October 1 - December 31, 2005 60.00 52.41 52.32 50.00 Days 40.00 30.00 16.86 20.00 20.36 12.68 12.74 10.00 1.45 AAA *Note: Appealable Agency Actions are agency actions taken before an opportunity for a hearing. A typical example would be the denial of a license. A party is entitled to a hearing before the OAH before the action becomes final. Contested Cases involve actions yet to be determined by an agency. An example would be proposed discipline on a professional license with the possibility of suspension or revocation. Parties are entitled to a hearing before the OAH prior to the agency acting. CC 3.46 0.00 Request for Hearing to Scheduling Scheduling to First Hearing Date Conclusion of Hearing to ALJ Decision ALJ Decision to Agency Action 1610 Cases Filed October 1, 2005 - December 31, 2005 2ndQ FY 2006 Accountancy Acupuncture Board Administration Admin. Parking Agriculture Ag. Emply. Rel. Bd. AHCCCS Alternative Fuel Appraisal Arizona Trial Courts Arizona Retirement Sys. Attorney General Arizona Works Athletic Board Banking Behavioral Health Ex. Building and Fire Safety Charter Schools Chiropractic Clean Elections Community Colleges Cosmetology Criminal Justice Dental 5 8 0 0 3 4 28 60 0 0 0 0 705 1603 0 0 7 14 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 20 1 1 30 53 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 22 29 2nd Q FY 2006 Economic Security Economic Security-CPS Education (Board) Education (Department) Environ. Quality Fingerprinting Funeral Gaming Health Services Insurance Land Liquor Lottery Maricopa Cty. Housing Massage Therapy Medical Board Medical Radiologic Naturopathic Nursing Nursing Care Admin. Occupation Therapy Optometry Osteopathic Parks page 3 0 31 0 16 10 30 0 2 81 20 5 12 1 0 2 3 1 0 35 1 1 0 1 0 0 76 0 23 27 30 0 5 195 41 10 24 2 0 2 10 6 0 67 1 1 0 1 0 2ndQ FY 2006 5 Peace Ofc. Standards 0 Pharmacy Board 0 Physical Therapy 0 Podiatry 1 Psychologist Examiners 5 Public Safety - CW Public Safety - Trans 5 Public Safety - Adult CC 0 0 Pvt. Post. Ed. Racing 3 0 Radiation Regulatory Registrar of Contractors 416 41 Real Estate 7 Revenue School - Deaf & Blind 0 7 Secretary of State State Board of Education 0 Structural Pest Control 4 0 Technical Registration Veterans Home 0 0 Veterinary Board Water Qual. App. Bd. 0 Water Resources 0 46 Weights and Measures 14 3 0 0 1 5 8 0 0 5 0 867 169 23 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 93 Evaluations of OAH Services Note: The four major groups of those who responded are: represented private party; unrepresented private party; counsel for a private party; and counsel for the agency. The evaluations are filled out immediately after the hearing, and the evaluations are not disclosed to the ALJ involved. They are used by management to improve the OAH process and do not affect the decisions issued. All Responses 2nd Quarter Unrepresented Responses 2nd Quarter 600 350 500 300 400 300 200 Excellent 250 Excellent Good 200 Good Average 150 Average Poor 100 Poor 0 0 Q Q Questions: 1. Attentiveness of ALJ 2. Effectiveness in explaining the hearing process 3. ALJ’s use of clear and neutral language 4. Impartiality Step 5. View the results and select a case from the list: Q ue st i Q on ue 1 st i Q on ue 2 st io n Q ue 3 st io n Q ue 4 st Q ion ue 5 st i Q on ue 6 st i Q on ue 7 st io n Q ue 8 st io n 9 50 ue st io n ue 1 st i Q on ue 2 st io n Q ue 3 st io n Q ue 4 st i o Q ue n 5 st i Q on ue 6 st io n Q ue 7 st io n Q ue 8 st io n 9 100 5. Effectiveness in dealing with the issues of the case 6. Sufficient space 7. Freedom from distractions 8. Questions responded to promptly and completely 9. Treated courteously Step 6. Open the decision: (note the agency action will appear first) For more information about searching OAH decisions, visit our website at www. azoah.com This publication is available in alternative formats. The OAH is an equal opportunity employer.