Opinion
No. CV 09 5014926S
January 14, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an administrative appeal brought by the plaintiff Mir Mubarik from an August 25, 2009 final decision of the defendant department of transportation (DOT), denying his application to operate a taxi cab service in the Meriden, Connecticut area. The record shows that on August 25, 2009 (Return of Record, ROR, #41) a hearing officer of DOT concluded that the plaintiff was not "suitable to operate the proposed service." After this ruling, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration (ROR, #42), and on September 11, 2009, the same hearing officer issued a decision denying the motion for reconsideration. (ROR, #43). This appeal followed.
The sole ground for the plaintiff's appeal is a document submitted to this court and filed as docket #119. This document is a form distributed to the plaintiff at the time he commenced the hearing process on his application and is entitled "Application and Hearing Process Guide." This guide states, in part, that a petition for reconsideration will be reviewed by a supervisory hearing officer, and not, as here, by the hearing officer who rendered the initial decision.
The plaintiff, neither in his brief nor at oral argument, raised a challenge to the content of the DOT's final decision or decision on reconsideration based on defects of fact or law.
The key portion of this document has been marked over and is not completely legible, apparently done in an attempt to highlight the language in question. The court is, however, familiar with the content of the language from the case of Horenian v. Dept. of Transportation, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. 10 6003839 (September 13, 2010, Cohn, J.). In addition, in a letter dated November 3, 2010, the plaintiff furnished a more legible copy of the document.
There are two reasons why the plaintiff's appeal on this ground lacks validity. First, this DOT form was never adopted as a regulation by the agency. See Salmon Brook Convalescent Home v. Commission on Hospitals Health Care, 177 Conn. 356, 362, 417 A.2d 358 (1979) (observing that official regulations of an agency are normally adopted through the UAPA). The assistant attorney general representing the DOT stated at a pre-trial hearing in this matter that the document had been withdrawn by the DOT; in addition, due to a reorganization, the post of supervising hearing officer does not exist.
More importantly, even if the document is binding on the DOT, the plaintiff must prove that he was prejudiced by the failure of the DOT to assign the reconsideration to a supervisory hearing officer, rather than the original hearing officer. See Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790, 828, 955 A.2d 15 (2008) ("not all procedural irregularities require a reviewing court to set aside an administrative decision; material prejudice to the complaining party must be shown"); Goldberg v. Insurance Department, 207 Conn. 77, 83, 540 A.2d 365 (1988) (party must show "personal harm or injury or proof that an individual's rights have been prejudiced or violated"). The plaintiff in his brief and at oral argument failed to recite any harmful consequence that resulted from the failure to have another hearing officer decide the motion to reconsider.
Therefore the administrative appeal is dismissed.