Taxi & Limousine Commission v. SK Abu Zahid Naser, Lic. No. 5310965
Taxi & Limousine Commission v.SK Abu Zahid Naser, Lic. No. 5310965
DECISION
The appeal of the Taxi & Limousine Commission(the “Commission”) is granted.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”)isreversed. The matter may be scheduled for a new hearing.
BACKGROUND
OnMay 7, 2009, the Commission appealed ALJ Roxanne Wild’sdecision datedApril 30, 2009. In that decision,the ALJdismissed the Rule 16-05B[1]violation stated in summons number1240608A.
TheALJ’s decision states, in relevant part:
The Driver is charged with not being trained on the blackberry for wheelchair accessible vehicles. The TLC through Lt. John Thomas, amended the summonses to their location associated with the trip number on each summons and was not objected to by the Driver’s representative.
The driver argues that the issuing person does not have authority to write summonses, he is not an inspector. The TLC argues that the rules state “a person designated by the Commission can send a notice”. The Court finds the person who issued the summons has authority to do so.
The Driver argues that the summonses were issued from a check on the TAMIS that showed “training: No Info”. The TLC states that nothing in the rules compels the Driver, any driver, to supply information to the TLC that the driver has the required training. The Driver is to carry the information with him and produce it when requested.
The summonses are dismissed.
On appeal, the Commission argues that the summons was not issued for failure to inform the Commission of the completion of the required training. The violation issued because the information on TAMIS indicated the driver has not had the relevant training and the vehicle’s trip log shows that the driver was operating the vehicle at various times without the training.
SK Abu Zahid Naser (the “respondent”) did not file a response to the Commission’s appeal.
ANALYSIS
The ALJ erred in dismissing the summons.
The summons was issued for operating an accessible vehicle without having completed the required training. There are two separate courses that must be completed. One course is an assistance course involving wheelchair passenger assistance techniques. The other course is a dispatch course involving the operation of the dispatch equipment provided by the dispatcher. A driver must complete both courses in order to be qualified to drive an accessible vehicle. If the Commission’s records indicate no information for a course, there is a rebuttable presumption that the course was not completed. The ALJ failed to make any finding as to whether or not the driver had completed the required training. An ALJ is required to make findings of fact in each decision, setting forth what the ALJ believes to have actually occurred with respect to the matter under adjudication. Findings of fact must be made and must be specific to the issues raised and alleged. The ALJ must make findings on all elements of the charges. (In Re Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) v. Luckner Francois, Lic. No. # 41001 [2007], quoting, In Re Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) v. Prosper Pierre, Lic. No. 433325 [2003]. The failure of the ALJ to make any finding as to whether the respondent had completed the training requires a reversal of the decision.
Moreover, the Commissions records disclose no information for the dispatch training andthat the assistance training was not completed until almost two months after the respondent operated an accessible vehicle. The Commission records therefore establish that the respondent operated the accessible vehicle before completing the required training and he was in violation of Rule 16-05B.
Dated: September 22, 2010
Charles R. Fraser
Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs
By: Thomas Bonanno
Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Unit
1
Printed on paper containing 30% post-consumer material.
[1] No driver may operate an accessible vehicle unless the driver has a certificate of completion for or other evidence of completion of the required training.