Zobriscky v. Los Angeles County

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Roger C. Zobriscky applied to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services for general relief.

1

When the depart

[932]

ment denied his application and refused his request for an evidentiary hearing to contest the denial, Zobriscky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, petitioned the trial court to mandate the county, the department, and the departmental director to hold an evidentiary hearing on his application. The trial court denied his petition.*

2

Zobriscky has appealed the judgment of denial, contending the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles him to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his application for general relief. In support of his position he cites

Goldberg

v.

Kelly

(1970) 397 U.S. 254 [25 L.Ed.2d 287, 90 S.Ct. 1011], which holds that due process of law requires a “fair hearing” before welfare payments may be terminated.

The issue is whether as a matter of constitutional law Zobriscky is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in connection with the denial of his application for public welfare benefits. This issue is not directly controlled by the ruling in

Goldberg,

for the latter only compels a hearing when existing welfare payments are being terminated. Said the Supreme Court: “The question for decision is whether a State that

terminates

public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to

termination

denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Italics ours.] [T]he crucial factor ... is that