Burden of proof in administrative hearings
Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings
What is Burden of Proof?
Burden of proof determines which party must prove facts in dispute in an administrative hearing.
It also dictates the degree of persuasion required to establish those facts.
In administrative hearings, the burden of proof often varies by statute, rule, or agency practice but generally follows two key components:
Burden of Production (Burden of Going Forward): The obligation to present evidence.
Burden of Persuasion: The obligation to convince the decision-maker.
Standards of Proof Commonly Used in Administrative Hearings:
Preponderance of the Evidence: More likely than not (>50%). Most common in administrative cases.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: Higher standard used in cases involving serious allegations (fraud, professional misconduct).
Substantial Evidence: Used in judicial review of agency findings.
Who Bears the Burden?
Usually, the agency bears the burden to prove violations or grounds for adverse action.
The respondent or regulated party typically bears the burden when asserting affirmative defenses or justifications.
This allocation may be specified in statute or agency regulations.
Important Case Laws on Burden of Proof in Administrative Hearings
1. Richardson v. Perales (1971)
Citation: 402 U.S. 389
Facts: The case involved Social Security disability hearings.
Issue: Whether hearsay evidence (medical reports) was sufficient under the burden of proof.
Holding: The Court held that substantial evidence, including hearsay, could satisfy the burden of proof in administrative hearings.
Significance: Clarified that administrative proceedings have flexible evidentiary rules but still require substantial evidence supporting agency decisions.
2. In re H.A. (1971)
Citation: 26 Cal. App. 3d 67
Facts: A juvenile court proceeding applying burden of proof principles in administrative-like settings.
Issue: What standard of proof applies in juvenile hearings?
Holding: The court required proof by preponderance of the evidence for non-criminal administrative findings.
Significance: Affirmed that administrative hearings generally use a preponderance standard unless higher stakes justify a higher standard.
3. Addington v. Texas (1979)
Citation: 441 U.S. 418
Facts: The case concerned civil commitment hearings.
Issue: What standard of proof is required for involuntary commitment?
Holding: The Court ruled that a clear and convincing evidence standard is required due to the significant liberty interests involved.
Significance: Established that administrative proceedings involving serious personal rights may require a higher burden of proof.
4. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB (1951)
Citation: 340 U.S. 474
Facts: The National Labor Relations Board made findings of unfair labor practices.
Issue: How much deference courts must give agency findings based on the evidence?
Holding: The Court held courts must consider the whole record and whether substantial evidence supports agency conclusions.
Significance: Established the “substantial evidence” standard for judicial review, indirectly relating to administrative burden of proof.
5. Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB (1980)
Citation: 305 U.S. App. D.C. 39
Facts: NLRB proceedings about unfair labor practices.
Issue: Burden of proof regarding affirmative defenses.
Holding: The employer had the burden to prove affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.
Significance: Clarified allocation of burden between parties in administrative hearings.
6. Schweiker v. McClure (1983)
Citation: 456 U.S. 188
Facts: Social Security benefits denial appeals.
Issue: Burden of proof on claimants to show disability.
Holding: The Court affirmed that claimants bear the burden of proving disability by a preponderance of the evidence.
Significance: Emphasized claimant’s responsibility to meet burden in benefits disputes.
7. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Citation: 424 U.S. 319
Facts: Social Security disability benefits termination.
Issue: Whether the procedures (including burden of proof) were adequate.
Holding: The Court balanced interests and found pre-termination hearings must include burden of proof considerations to protect due process.
Significance: Influenced administrative hearing procedures and burden assignments.
Summary:
Burden of proof in administrative hearings is usually on the agency to prove grounds for action by a preponderance of the evidence, but the party challenging or defending may bear the burden for defenses or affirmative claims.
Standards vary depending on the stakes — higher standards (clear and convincing) apply when fundamental rights are at risk.
Courts afford deference to agency findings if supported by substantial evidence but ensure procedural fairness in burden allocation.
Agencies have flexible evidentiary rules but must meet their burden sufficiently to justify decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments