(a) In making a determination, the Hearing Officers and the Director are not bound by previous findings of facts on which the agency's adverse decision was based.
(b) In making a determination on the appeal, Hearing Officers and the Director shall ensure that the decision is consistent with the laws and regulations of the agency, and with the generally applicable interpretations of such laws and regulations.
(c) All determinations of the Hearing Officers and the Director must be based on information from the case record, laws applicable to the matter at issue, and applicable regulations published in the Federal Register and in effect on the date of the adverse decision or the date on which the acts that gave rise to the adverse decision occurred, whichever date is appropriate under the applicable agency program laws and regulations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case:
Huff v. Vilsack, 195 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.D.C. 2016).
Huff v. Vilsack, 195 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.D.C. 2016).
· cites it 2× “) Furthermore, in finding that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions were “supported by substantial evidence” (Director Determination at 7), and in carrying out his responsibility to inquire whether RD’s denial determination was “consistent with the laws and regulations of the…”
J.O.C. Farms, LLC. v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Agency, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 514 (E.D.N.C. 2015).
· cites it 5× “§ 6998 (c); see ■ 7 C.F.R. § 11.10 (b),(c). Like the hearing officer, the Director is “not bound by previous findings of facts on which the agency’s adverse decision was based.”
Ortiz v. United States Gov't (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “§ 6998 (c) and 7 C.F.R. § 11.10 (b), because the Director “constrict[ed] the jurisdiction of his agency,” rather than properly reviewed “the laws and facts relevant to [Plaintiffs’] appeal.”
Shelley v. United States of Am. (M.D. Ala. 2022).
“2 (b); 7 C.F.R. § 11.10 . Considering these regulations, it cannot be said that the Jackson County FSA office erred in its denial of claims for a crop that were never identified on a NAP application.”
Nichols v. Glickman, 156 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Or. 2001).
“For their proposition that the NAD exceeded its authority, plaintiffs rely on 7 C.F.R. § 11.10 (b) and (c), which set forth rules concerning “Basis for determination” and provides: (b) In making a determination on the appeal, Hearing Officers and the Director shall ensure that…”
— 7 C.F.R. § 11.10(a) — 1 case
J.O.C. Farms, LLC. v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Agency, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 514 (E.D.N.C. 2015).
“§ 6998 (c); see ■ 7 C.F.R. § 11.10 (b),(c). Like the hearing officer, the Director is “not bound by previous findings of facts on which the agency’s adverse decision was based.”
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.