Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grocery v. New Jersey Dep't of Health and Senior Services

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


November 24, 2010

CABA GROCERY, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES, DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES, NEW JERSEY WIC PROGRAM, RESPONDENT

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Division of Health Services, Department of Health and Senior Services, Hearing No. 09-45.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted: November 10, 2010

Before Judges Cuff and Fisher.

Appellant Caba Grocery (Caba) filed an application to participate as a vendor in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program. It appeals from a final order of the Grant Appeals Board of the Department of Health and Senior Services that denied its appeal. We affirm.

In support of its application, Caba supplied a Commodity Price List (CPL) for comparison with other vendor-applicants. The WIC program rejected the application because Caba's prices were higher than other vendors. In the course of its administrative appeal, Caba conceded its prices exceeded those of other vendors and attempted to submit a new CPL with revised prices for consideration. The Grant Appeals Board rejected this new submission and held the WIC program correctly determined Caba's prices were not competitive and denied its application.

On appeal, Caba argues that the Grant Appeals Board erred when it failed to consider its revised CPL. We disagree and affirm.

Caba misapprehends the purpose of the administrative review process. As a proposed vendor, Caba sought review of a decision rejecting its application because its prices were higher than other applicants. The sole issue before the Grant Appeals Board was whether the agency properly found that Caba's prices exceeded those of other prospective vendors. An appeal is not the forum to submit new information. An appeal procedure reviews the record before the decision-maker; it is not an opportunity to amend an initial application.

Caba conceded its prices were "rather high," and it submitted no information that the agency decision is not supported by the record or not in conformity with the regulations governing the program. We, therefore, affirm the agency decision. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

20101124

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.