Petition of Holly Cadwallader

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0573, Petition of Holly Cadwallader, the
court on September 13, 2019, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The petitioner, Holly Cadwallader, challenges a decision of the
Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) of the New Hampshire Department of Health
and Human Services (department) denying her application for benefits under the
Medicaid for Employed Adults with Disabilities (MEAD) program. We construe
her brief to contend that: (1) the analysis applicable to applications for benefits
under Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled should have been applied to
her application; and (2) she was entitled to benefits under MEAD because she
was employed part-time and had received vocational rehabilitation services for
more than nine years.

The only judicial review of a fair hearings decision issued by the
department is by petition for a writ of certiorari. Petition of Sawyer, 170 N.H.
197, 202 (2017). Review on certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, usually
available only in the absence of a right to appeal, and only at the discretion of the
court. Petition of Chase Home for Children, 155 N.H. 528, 532 (2007). Our
review of an agency decision on a petition for writ of certiorari entails examining
whether the agency “acted illegally with respect to jurisdiction, authority or
observance of the law or has unsustainably exercised its discretion or acted
arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously.” Id. “We exercise our power to grant
such writs sparingly and only where to do otherwise would result in substantial
injustice.” Id.

As the party bringing this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has
the burden of demonstrating that the AAU “acted illegally with respect to
jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law or has unsustainably exercised its
discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously.” Id.; see Gallo v.
Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the AAU’s well-
reasoned decision, the petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the
record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not met that
burden. See Gallo, 166 N.H. at 740.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2