9. Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision (POD)

On December 1, PHR filed an appeal of the POD, alleging two errors in the decision. First, PHR claims that Rule 4.10.1 of the CSI Handbook, which allows disqualification from the CSI Program for forged paperwork, is vague and unreasonable. PHR contends the rule is vague because it does not delineate between a forged document prepared and submitted by an applicant and a document forged by others and unknowingly submitted by an applicant. According to PHR, this vagueness creates ambiguity and the possibility of disqualification where the applicant has no knowledge of a forgery. Moreover, PHR asserts that this vague and ambiguous rule violates PHR's state and federal due process rights.

Second, PHR maintains the POD is unsupported by the facts in the record because the record contains no evidence that anyone from PHR or MEI forged these documents. Although testimony by a forensic examiner supports that it is "virtually certain" that the documents were forged, PHR asserts that this testimony does not support a finding that someone at PHR or MEI forged the documents.

In response, CCSE claims the appeal has no merit. CCSE notes that PHR's due process claim was not set forth in its complaint, was not argued at the hearing or in briefs, and was not included in the scoping memo for the proceeding. Moreover, CCSE asserts that Rule 4.10.1 correctly imposes the burden on the applicant to assure that documents are not forged. With regard to PHR's claim that evidence does not support that anyone at PHR or MEI committed the forgery, CCSE notes that the burden of proof in the case was on PHR. According to CCSE, the evidence was overwhelming that application documents submitted by PHR and MEI were forged.

After reviewing the appeal and response to the appeal, the presiding officer declined to make any changes to the order originally mailed on November 4. The appeal of the POD does not have merit. The due process claim against Rule 4.10.1 was not raised during the course of the proceeding. Moreover, all applicable due process requirements have been met with regard to this matter. PHR had adequate notice of the CSI rules, it voluntarily chose to participate in the CSI program, it was notified of its disqualification and appeal rights, and all due process requirements were followed during the course of this complaint. Finally, the evidence set forth in detail in this POD adequately supports the finding that CCSE reasonably concluded that PHR submitted forged documents and CCSE acted reasonably in disqualifying PHR from the CSI Program.