The Department on Disability Services (DDS), Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provides vocational rehabilitation services to persons with physical or mental disabilities in order to help them secure employment. DDS/RSA assesses the applicant’s eligibility for services and whether the services are required to obtain employment. If an applicant is found eligible and requires vocational services for employment, DDS/RSA prepares an Individual Plan for Employment (IPE). An applicant who has been denied services in whole or in part may file an appeal of DDS/RSA’s decision with the Office of Administrative Hearings.
DDS/RSA also administers the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program which licenses blind vendors to operate facilities in public buildings. A blind vendor who objects to any DDS/RSA decision may appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Administrative law judges issue a written decision for every case that is contested. The decisions below are examples of some issues raised in Office of Administrative Hearings’ cases involving this agency. You can review these decisions to get a sense of how prior cases were decided.
Please note that the facts of each case are different. These cases should be used for informational purposes only.
- E.W. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., February 16, 2012 (compelling agency to pay education costs at institution able to accommodate Petitioner’s needs)
- D.H. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., November 23, 2011 (permitting an Individualized Plan for Employment that covers one semester of a school year and requiring some transportation costs be paid)
- Davis v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., March 22, 2012 (reversing agency decision that denied petitioner opportunity to operate a particular facility under the Randolph Sheppard Vending Facility Program)
M. F-G v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., 2009 (affirming agency decision refusing to pay costs of paralegal training incurred by Petitioner who was obligated to contribute more money to her training than the costs already incurred; errors by agency not determinative)
T.T. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., Oct. 13, 2006 (RSA not obligated to provide vocational benefits for which Petitioner contracted prior to his application for RSA benefits)
P.D. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., March 14, 2013 (dismissing appeal because appeal request was untimely filed)
B.L. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., June 15, 2012 (reversing agency decision to amend an IPE and terminate services without following proper procedures)
H.P. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs. May 18, 2012 (affirming agency decision not to fund a semester of school because the funding was not a provision in an IPE and dismissing further claim as untimely filed)
Patten v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., March 29, 2012 (reversing agency decision denying a Randolph Sheppard Vending Facility Program facility to Petitioner because decision not based on any documentation of alleged serious management problems)
G.S. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., August 11, 2011 (affirming agency payment of tuition based on tuition for a comparable program at UDC for District of Columbia residents rather than the higher tuition at a private university but reversing agency decisions (a) to consider a grant from a private institution a “comparable benefit” to offset agency payment of tuition costs and (b) to propose an IPE for only one semester of school)
W.C. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., August 5, 2011 (finding agency gave insufficient notice of its actions which did not prejudice Petitioner, but reversing agency decision to reduce the amount of tuition it paid)
Pettaway-Brooks v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., December 29, 2011 (affirming agency decision to decline to award a second facility under the Randolph Sheppard Vending Facility Program when the Petitioner had already received a facility during that “Call Down”)
S.L. v. Dep’t on Disability Servs., July 15, 2011 (ordering agency, under an IPE, to fund dental services from a private provider, even if the private provider is not a Medicaid provider, after giving agency a period of time to find comparable benefits from a Medicaid provider)
Administrative law judges base their decisions upon many sources of law, chief among them the District of Columbia laws (DC Official Code) and the District of Columbia regulations (DCMR). Depending on the type of case, federal law (US Code) and federal regulations (CFR) may also be relevant. Cases decided on the issues in other courts, especially the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, are relevant.
- General—Blank Submission Form
- General—Certificate of Service (in English and en Español)
- General—Customer Survey Form
- General—Electronic Filing Cover Sheet
- General—Subpoena Form (sample only)
- General—Notice of Appearance for Lawyers
- General—Request for a Different Hearing Date (in English and en Español)
- General—Request to Participate by Telephone (in English and en Español)
- General—Request for Audio Recording of Hearing