IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
o
DAVID MURESAN,
No. 69303-4-1 , —i—i
Appellant, rn 'o
C~2 <-3 ""H.-
DIVISION ONE iv> ^
c/>rnr--:
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
—tr-i
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND xr o -;
HEALTH SERVICES,
Respondent. FILED: December 23, 2013
Per Curiam. David Muresan appeals a decision affirming a final agency
order denying his application for a license to operate an adult family home. We
affirm.
The history of this matter, as well as the flaw in Muresan's legal
arguments, are succinctly summarized in the superior court's "Order on Petition
for Judicial Review":
On September 9, 2009, the Department wrote the Appellant a letter
informing him that his application for an [Adult Family Home (AFH)]
license had been denied.. . .
... In the denial letter, the Department stated that the denial was
based on WAC 388-76-10120, subsections (3)(a) and (3)(f), which
describe circumstances in which the Department must deny an
applicant's AFH license application. In support of its decision the
Department cited three previous AFH license revocations and an
Adult Protective Services (APS) finding of neglect of a vulnerable
adult involving the Appellant.
... On April 19, 2012, Review Judge Marjorie R. Gray issued a
Review Decision and Final Order affirming the Initial Order. On
May 9, 2012 . . . the Review Decision and Final Order dated April
19, 2012, became the final administrative order.
No. 69303-4-1 / 2
... The Department is required by regulation to deny an application
for a license to operate an AFH when an applicant has a history of
significant noncompliance. Such a history of significant
noncompliance is defined as including the revocation or suspension
of a license for the care of vulnerable adults.
. . . The Appellant has been found to have neglected a vulnerable
adult, and is listed on the APS Abuse Registry. He has had
previous licenses for adult family homes revoked. He has had
subsequent license applications denied. The Appellant is
collaterally estopped from relitigating the previous revocations and
license denials, as well as his findings of neglect. The
Department's action denying his new application for an adult family
home license should be affirmed as a matter of law.
. . . The Review Decision and Order dated April 19, 2012, is
affirmed . . . .
On appeal from the superior court's decision, we review the underlying
agency decision and sit in the same position as the superior court. Tapper v.
Employment Security Department. 122 Wn.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993).
We may grant relief only if Muresan demonstrates that the agency's decision is
based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, not supported by substantial
evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3). Muresan has not
established any of these bases for relief.
Instead, his sole assignment of error is an impermissible collateral attack
on previous decisions that are now final and beyond the scope of review. As the
superior court noted, those final decisions now constitute "a history of significant
noncompliance with federal or state laws or regulations in the provision of care or
services to . . . vulnerable adults" that disqualify him from operating an adult
No. 69303-4-1 / 3
family home as a matter of law. WAC 388-76-10120(3)(a)(f). Muresan fails to
demonstrate any basis for relief from the final administrative order.
Affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
4*,;r