The Court imposed a total of $2,000 in civil fines against an organization that raised and spent funds to defeat two members in Muscogee school board elections. The Court concluded the organization had been acting as an independent committee and had failed to file the required disclosure reports and comply with contribution limits.
In affirming DDS’s suspension of a driver’s license, the Court rejected the driver’s argument that the arresting officer had improperly read the implied-consent notice to the point of being misleading. The officer had reverted to an older version of the implied-consent notice, which referred to the driver submitting to “required” chemical tests, as opposed to
Officer referring to “required tests” did not substantially change implied-consent notice Read More
This case involved a long-term-care facility seeking an involuntary transfer of a PTSD patient who had a history of altercations with other patients. The Court reversed the discharge decision, on the grounds the facility had no evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time the discharge had been sought. As no emergency existed, the
The Court upheld the denial of food stamps for an applicant whose husband, a Swedish citizen, received a pension from another country. The Court concluded that food-stamp regulations and DFCS’s policies required that the pension be considered income and therefore verified. As the pension funds were not verified, the applicant’s denial was proper.
In upholding DBHDD’s denial of an application for NOW/COMP benefits, the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence the applicant had significantly impaired adaptive functioning in at least three areas. Although the applicant presented one report that appeared to show significant deficits in functioning, the Court gave that report less weight because the results fell “far
Test results provided by applicant insufficient to reverse denial of NOW/COMP application Read More
This case involved an appeal of the Department of Community Health’s decision to reduce services provided to a child through the Georgia Pediatric Program (GAPP). In remanding the case to the agency, the Court concluded the original notice to the child’s parent announcing the reduced services had neglected to list every reason why the agency
GAPP recipient given insufficient notice as to why benefits were reduced Read More
