This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a severely disabled adult, David Lopez, whose mother, acting as his representative, challenged the New Mexico Human Services Department's failure to provide certain services under the Coordinated Community In-Home Care Program (CCIC). The program aimed to prevent unnecessary institutionalization by offering services such as respite care and behavior management. Despite being included in David's care plan, these services were inconsistently provided due to staffing issues, family-provider conflicts, and David's behavioral challenges.
Procedural History
- New Mexico Human Services Department, August 1989: The hearing officer ruled in favor of the Department, finding that it had made reasonable efforts to provide the services and could not be held at fault for the lack of consistent service provision.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother of David Lopez): Argued that the Department's failure to provide respite care and behavior management services was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. She also contended that the hearing officer's findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.
- Respondent (New Mexico Human Services Department): Asserted that it had made all reasonable efforts to provide the services and that the family's lack of cooperation contributed to the difficulties. It also argued that the family’s actions could be construed as a voluntary withdrawal from the program.
Legal Issues
- Was the decision of the hearing officer arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law?
- Was the hearing officer's decision supported by substantial evidence?
- Is the Department responsible for providing services when subcontractors fail to deliver them?
- Did the Department constructively terminate services without following proper procedures?
Disposition
- The case was remanded to the hearing officer for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as a supplemental record and briefs to address unresolved issues.
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Donnelly and Chavez JJ. concurring):
The court found that the hearing officer's findings were insufficient to resolve the issues on appeal. Specifically, the findings did not address whether the Department had constructively terminated services, whether the family’s conduct or David’s condition made service provision unfeasible, or whether the Department had made a good-faith effort to provide the services.
The court emphasized that the Department remains responsible for ensuring services are provided, even when subcontractors are used, and that any termination of services must comply with state regulations. The court also noted that the Department may modify care plans if services become unfeasible, but such modifications must follow proper procedures.
The court remanded the case for further findings to determine whether the Department had fulfilled its obligations and whether the family’s actions constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the program.