Samiras Day Care Center, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1170

Samiras Day Care Center,
Appellant,

vs.

Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Respondent,

Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department,
Respondent.

Filed January 14, 2019
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-17-13562

Nahid Abuelhassan, Abuelhassan Law, P.L.L.C., St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith M. Ellison , Attorney General, Heather Kjos, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County A ttorney, Daniel D. Kaczor, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Hennepin County Human Services and
Public Health Department)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Bjorkman,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant child care provider challenges the decision of the human -services
commissioner that appellant was overpaid through the Minnesota Child Care Assistance
Program (CCAP) . Appellant argues that (1) substantial evidence does not support the
determination that it failed to maintain required attendance records and (2) the
commissioner erred by holding it, not parents, responsible for record-keeping deficiencies.
We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Samiras Day C are Center received CCAP payments in 2016. That
August, respondent Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department (the
county) rescinded Samiras’s authorization to receive CCAP payments, 1 and in December,
the county sent Samiras a notice of o verpayment. The notice indicated that Samiras
received $22,773.93 of CCAP payments for the period May 1 to August 14, 2016, to which
it was not entitled because it failed to comply with CCAP record-keeping requirements.
The notice also stated that Samiras must repay that amount. Samiras appealed.
A human-services judge (HSJ) conducted a two -day evidentiary hearing, receiving
testimony and voluminous exhibits. Based on that evidence, the HSJ issued recommended
findings that (1) many of Samiras’s attendan ce records are either missing entirely or lack

1 The county rescinded the authorization because Samiras failed to comply with the CCAP
record-keeping requirements and failed to provide CCAP records upon request. Samiras
does not challenge the rescission in this appeal.

3
required elements (such as the child’s last name or arrival and departure times), indicating
an overpayment, but (2) discrepancies between billing forms and attendance records
regarding absence or holidays do not indicate an overpayment. The HSJ recommended an
overpayment assessment of $18,365.58 for the established record -keeping failures. The
Commissioner of respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services adopted the HSJ’s
recommended findings and order. Samiras requested reconsideration, which the
commissioner denied.
Samiras appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed the
commissioner’s decision. Samiras appeals.
D E C I S I O N
A childcare provider receiving CCAP payments must keep daily attendance records.
Minn. Stat. § 119B.125, subd. 6 (2018). The records must include the date, first and last
name of each child in attendance, and the time each child was dropped off and picked up .
Id. Failure to comply with these record -keeping requirements is grounds for an
overpayment claim against the provider, and the commissioner must seek to recover the
overpayment. Id., subds. 6, 7(d) (2018).
On appeal from a district court order affirming an overpayment determination, we
independently review the com missioner’s order. Verhein v. Piper , 917 N.W.2d 96, 101
(Minn. App. 2018). Our scope of review is governed by Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2018). Id.
We may affirm, remand, reverse , or modify the commissioner’s decision if the appellant
shows the decision is affected by an error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence
“in view of the entire record as submitted,” and the error prejudiced appellant’s substantial

4
rights. Minn. Stat. § 14.69. Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Zahler v. Minn. Dep’t
of Human Servs. , 624 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted) , review
denied (Minn. June 19, 2001).
I. Substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s determination that Samiras
failed to maintain required records.

Samiras does not dispute that some of its attendance records were deficient but
asserts that substantial evidence does not support the determination that other requi red
records were entirely missing .2 Samiras’s only specifi c evidentiary challenge is to the
commissioner’s finding that Samiras did not provide an attendance record for A.S. for July
4 to July 17, despite obtaining $366 in CCAP payments for this period . Samiras insists
that this finding is erroneous because this attendance record was not missing—it existed at
the time of the hearing but Samiras could not provide it to the HSJ because the bureau of
criminal apprehension (BCA) collected it as part of a criminal investigation, then returned
it to the county, which did not produce it.
The commissioner properly rejected this argument on reconsideration , when
Samiras submitted the attendance record in question . Samiras was aware of the basis of
the claimed overpayment and that the BCA had returned the numerous records it collected
to the county before the hearing began . And, prior to the hearing, the HSJ granted

2 Samiras also argues that the ev idence does not sustain a determination that it failed to
provide attendance records on demand, as required under Minn. Stat. § 119B.125, subd. 6.
Because the overpayment at issue in this appeal is not based on any such failure, this
argument is not properly before us.

5
Samiras’s request for a subpoena to obtain documents from the county . T he exhibits
Samiras offered during the hearing largely duplicated the county’s exhibits; they did not
include A.S.’s July 4 to July 17 attendance record. Samiras did not object to any of the
exhibits and did not assert that anything was mis sing. On this record, Samiras has not
established any error in the finding that A.S.’s attendance record was missing.
More fundamentally, Samiras’s assertion that A.S.’s July 4 to July 17 attendance
record existed (despite not being in the record) does not support its argument that therefore
“no attendance records were missing.” This particular attendance record was just one
example noted in the commissioner’s written decision. The undisputed record reflects that
numerous attendance records were missing, including those for A.S. for other time periods.
In short, the record as submitted to the commissioner, and which the commissioner
properly declined to enlarge on reconsideration, contains substantial evidence that Samiras
entirely failed to maintain required records.
II. The commissioner did not err in interpreting Minn. Stat. § 119B.125 (2018) to
hold Samiras responsible for compliance with record-keeping requirements.

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Verhein, 917 N.W.2d at
101. We look to the plain language of the statute to ascertain the legislature’s intent. Minn.
Stat. § 645.16 (2018). When the intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous
language, we will give that meaning effect without considering other principles of statutory
interpretation. Verhein, 917 N.W.2d at 102. Only if the statute is ambiguous will we “look
beyond statutory language to discern legislative intent.” Id.

6
Samiras argues that under Minn. Stat. § 119B.125, subd. 6, “the responsibility of
attendance records rests on the parent dropping off or picking up the child.” We disagree.
CCAP attendance records must include five pieces of information: (1) the date, (2) each
child’s first name, (3) each child’s last name , (4) each child’s drop-off time, and (5) each
child’s pick-up time. Minn. Stat. § 119B.125, subd. 6. The statute provides that, “[t]o the
extent possible, . . . the person dropping off or picking up the child ” must enter the drop -
off time and the pick-up time. Id. But nothing in the statute makes parents responsible for
ensuring the records include the other required pieces of information —the date and the
child’s first and last name. And, ultimately, it is the provider receiving the CCAP benefits
that “must keep [the] daily attendance records,” retain them onsite, and “make [them]
available immediately” upon request. Id.
Moreover, the legislature plainly made providers responsible for any record-keeping
shortfalls. When “the provider has not complied with the re cord-keeping requirement,”
the commissioner may establish an overpayment claim “against [the] . . . provider.” Id.,
subds. 6, 7(c). And the commissioner must seek to recover the overpayments from the
provider. Id., subd. 7(d), (e). For that reason, it is the provider that is entitled to notice and
an opportunity to be heard regarding the assessment of an overpayment. See id., subd. 7(c)
(requiring detailed notice, including “the provider’s right to appeal”). Viewing the plain
language of Minn. Stat. § 119B.125 as a whole, we conclude the commissioner did not err
in assessing Samiras an overpayment based on its established failure to comply with the
statutory record-keeping requests.
Affirmed.