Norasingh

Norasingh v. Lightbourne

Good Law
176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 868·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 815·229 Cal. App. 4th 740
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2014A137967California7,234 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

Amanda Norasingh—a young adult suffering from significant medical and mental disabilities—appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Through these writ proceedings, Norasingh seeks reinstatement of protective supervision benefits under the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program administered by the California State Department of Social Services (CDSS). After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Norasingh was no longer eligible for the protective supervision benefits that she had been receiving since 2005. The trial court subsequently affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Norasingh contends on appeal that the trial court’s order upholding the ALJ’s decision was legally flawed and not supported by substantial evidence. Finding that a persistent misconception regarding the scope of Norasingh’s mental impairment has fatally undermined the eligibility determination in this case, we reverse.

L BACKGROUND

A. Protective Supervision Under the IHSS Program

“IHSS is a state social welfare program designed to avoid institutionalization of incapacitated persons. It provides supportive services to aged, blind, or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.