California Department of Social Services - State Hearings Division
Notes from the Training Bureau - May 13, 2008

Since May 2007, the ALJ Specialists have been reviewing DSS State Hearing decisions when one party has requested a rehearing; approximately 350 decisions have been reviewed during this period. Although this review is neither methodical nor statistically accurate, it is the only organized review of our decisions currently in place and can be used to provide quality control.

To that end, the Specialists have noted specific areas where there are problems with the decisions being rendered by our Department. This Note is being issued to re-iterate decision writing standards as set forth in the ALJ manual.

The decision should contain the factual basis and the legal support necessary to withstand a challenge in Superior Court. To meet this standard a decision must:

1. Set forth all of the issues raised at the hearing. If an issue is discussed but the substance is not being decided, this should be reflected in some manner in the hearing decision. If the issue has been resolved or withdrawn by the claimant, the decision should so state. If the issue is being dismissed, the decision should set forth this conclusion.

2. Contain all of the relevant calculations unless they are specifically not at issue; if they are not at issue, the decision should so state. The calculations can be presented in narrative form; the decision does not need to include charts or tables. A statement by the ALJ that she or he has reviewed the calculations and found them to be correct is not sufficient without inclusion of the calculations.

3. Set forth in the FACTS section all of the facts required for making a correct legal conclusion; the facts cannot appear in the CONCLUSION section for the first time. If the facts are undisputed, this must be referenced in the FACTS section of the decision.

4. Re-iterate in the ORDER the terms of any stipulations agreed to at hearing; the inclusion of the stipulation only in the body of the decision is insufficient.

The Specialists have also noted a significant number of typographical errors. ALJs are responsible for proofreading their decisions; this is not a clerical responsibility. We recognize that it is difficult to catch all of our own errors but greater attention needs to be paid to those things not caught by spell-check. On a voluntary basis judges may choose to review each others' decisions in order to catch more errors.