{
  "id": 298577,
  "name": "Lawrence BROWN v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Department of Human Services",
  "decision_date": "1997-12-18",
  "docket_number": "97-479",
  "first_page": "764",
  "last_page": "767",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "330 Ark. 764"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "956 S.W.2d 866"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906084
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877695
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0189-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 3383,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.011903010561619616
    },
    "sha256": "cf00af792c8fc7be29d2dc4f0c64a2c7f2d8628c246baaac16fe6f06b1e9b4d4",
    "simhash": "1:06efc26e8e4857ba",
    "word_count": 554
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:54.141445+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lawrence BROWN v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice.\nThe appellants, Lawrence Brown and Charles Murdock, appeal an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court upholding the decision of the Office of Hearing and Appeals of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that there was some credible evidence to support allegations that they had abused a juvenile at a youth facility in North Little Rock. Finding no merit to the appellants\u2019 three arguments for reversal, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nThe appellants first argue that the trial court erred in rejecting their argument that their due process rights were violated because OHA did not complete its hearing process within ninety days from the date that it received their request for a hearing. Under the Arkansas Administrative Procedures Act, particularly Ark. Code Arm. \u00a7 12-12-512 (Repl. 1995), the administrative hearing process must be completed within ninety days from the date of receipt of the request for a hearing. Appellants filed their request for a hearing on January 31, 1996, but OHA did not conclude the hearing until May 21, 1996.\nWe need not decide whether this delay prejudiced the appellants\u2019 due process rights because they did not present this argument to OHA. It is well-settled that we do not set aside an administrative determination on a ground not presented to the agency. Alcoholic Beverage Control Div. v. Barnett, 285 Ark. 189, 685 S.W.2d 511 (1985). The trial court correctly rejected the appellants\u2019 argument for this reason.\nNext, the appellants assert that the trial court erred in rejecting their argument that the continuance of the hearing from May 2, 1996, to May 21, 1996, on DHS\u2019s motion so that it could secure the presence of its key witness in the case, violated their due process rights. We cannot reach this argument because the record reveals that no objection was made below to the granting of a continuance. Because the appellants failed to present this argument at the administrative hearing, we do not consider it on appeal. Riverways Home Care v. Ark. Health Serv. Comm\u2019n, 309 Ark. 452, 831 S.W.2d 611 (1992).\nFinally, the appellants contend that because the trial court found that there was some credible evidence of abuse, it erroneously felt compelled to reject their due process arguments, as it reasoned that it \u201cmust affirm the DHS decision.\u201d Arkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 25-12-212(h) (Repl. 1996) provides in part that the trial court \u201cmay\u201d reverse or modify an agency\u2019s decision if it determines that the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced due to an agency\u2019s decision that is in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Thus, under our statute, even if we were to agree that the appellants\u2019 due process rights were violated, it would have been within the trial court\u2019s discretion to reverse and remand their case. When reviewing the trial court\u2019s order, it appears to us that he made separate findings with respect to the substantive evidence of abuse and the appellants\u2019 due process claims. In any event, we cannot say that the trial court erred.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court\u2019s decision.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "W.H. \u201cDub\u201d Arnold, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Law Offices of Treeca J. Dyer, P.A., by: Treeca J. Dyer, for appellant.",
      "Joel P. Landreneau, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lawrence BROWN v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES\n97-479\n956 S.W.2d 866\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1997\nLaw Offices of Treeca J. Dyer, P.A., by: Treeca J. Dyer, for appellant.\nJoel P. Landreneau, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0764-02",
  "first_page_order": 802,
  "last_page_order": 805
}