34 C.F.R. § 668.116

Hearing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A hearing is a process conducted by the hearing official whereby an orderly presentation of arguments and evidence is made by the parties.

(b) The hearing process consists of the submission of written briefs to the hearing official by the institution or third-party servicer, as applicable, and by the designated department official, unless the hearing official determines, under paragraph (g) of this section, that an oral hearing is also necessary.

(c) Each party shall provide a copy of its brief and any accompanying materials to the opposing party simultaneously with the filing of its brief and materials with the hearing official.

(d) An institution or third-party servicer requesting review of the final audit determination or final program review determination issued by the designated department official shall have the burden of proving the following matters, as applicable:

(1) That expenditures questioned or disallowed were proper.

(2) That the institution or servicer complied with program requirements.

(e)(1) A party may submit as evidence to the hearing official only materials within one or more of the following categories:

(i) Department of Education audit reports and audit work papers for audits performed by the department's Office of Inspector General.

(ii) In the case of an institution, institutional audit work papers, records, and other materials.

(iii) In the case of a third-party servicer, the servicer's audit work papers and the records and other materials of the servicer or any institution that contracts with the servicer.

(iv) Department of Education program review reports and work papers for program reviews.

(v) Institutional or servicer records and other materials (including records and other materials of any institution that contracts with the servicer) provided to the Department of Education in response to a program review.

(vi) Other Department of Education records and materials.

(f) The hearing official accepts only evidence that is both admissible and timely under the terms of paragraph (e) of this section, and relevant and material to the appeal. Examples of evidence that shall be deemed irrelevant and immaterial except upon a clear showing of probative value respecting the matters described in paragraph (d) of this section include—

(1) Evidence relating to a period of time other than the period of time covered by the audit or program review;

(2) Evidence relating to an audit or program review of an institution or third-party servicer other than the institution or servicer bringing the appeal, or the resolution thereof; and

(3) Evidence relating to the current practice of the institution or servicer bringing the appeal in the program areas at issue in the appeal.

(g)(1) The hearing official may schedule an oral argument if he or she determines that an oral argument is necessary to clarify the issues and the positions of the parties as presented in the parties' written submissions.

(2) In the event that an oral argument is conducted, the designated department official makes a transcribed record of the proceedings and makes one copy of that record available to each of the parties to the proceeding.

(h) Any oral argument shall take place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

(i) Either party may be represented by counsel.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1094) [52 FR 30115, Aug. 12, 1987; 52 FR 46354, Dec. 7, 1987, as amended at 57 FR 47753, Oct. 19, 1992; 59 FR 22452, Apr. 29, 1994; 59 FR 61186, Nov. 29, 1994; 78 FR 48051, Aug. 7, 2013]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: Trs. of the California State Univ. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 74 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trs. of the California State Univ. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 74 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “The ALJ rejected the Department’s argument that the accounting abstract should not be considered because it was not timely filed under the agency regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 . The Secretary, finding that Pell Grant funds are not “grant” monies within the meaning of the ICA,…”

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez v. Riley, 234 F.3d 772 (1st Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 (d) (1987). After reviewing the record, a DOE administrative law judge affirmed the $1.”

San Juan City Coll., Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 26 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “1997) (examining whether plaintiff had been given the appropriate hearing under 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 ). 16 In either event, the only “monetary” remedy would have been the restoration of payments.”

Instituto De Educacion Universal, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 341 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.P.R. 2004). “88 (c)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 (d) (1996-98). However, after USDE satisfied its burden to establish Plaintiffs nonpayment of refunds, Plaintiff necessarily assumed the burden to support its defense that it actually did pay the refunds contrary to USDE’s evidence.”

Chauffeur's Training Sch., Inc. v. Riley, 967 F. Supp. 719 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 . The hearing official is required to issue an initial decision setting forth the basis of his findings and conclusions.”

Chauffeur's Training Sch., Inc. v. Spellings, 478 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 . The Department’s rules make no provision for subpoenas or for oral testimony.”

St. Louis Univ. v. Duncan, 97 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (E.D. Mo. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 (d). On review, the hearing official must issue a written decision explaining whether the final audit determination “was supportable, in whole or in part.”

— 34 C.F.R. § 668.116(b) — 1 case

Chauffeur's Training Sch., Inc. v. Spellings, 478 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2007). “See 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 . The Department’s rules make no provision for subpoenas or for oral testimony.”

— 34 C.F.R. § 668.116(e)(l)(ii) — 1 case

Trs. of the California State Univ. v. Richard W. Riley, Sec'y of the Dep't of Educ., 74 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 1996). “The ALJ rejected the Department’s argument that the accounting abstract should not be considered because it was not timely filed under the agency regulation, 34 C.F.R. § 668.116 . The Secretary, finding that Pell Grant funds are not “grant” monies within the meaning of the ICA,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.