In the Matter of the Suspension of the Teaching Certificates of Elizabeth Sheehy, State Board of Examiners, 5/4/2021, (#98-21A)

1
State Board of Examiners Dkt No. 1718-158
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 4106-18
Agency Dkt. No. 1-1/21A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Certificates of Elizabeth Sheehy,
State Board of Examiners, New Jersey
Department of Education.
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, November 4, 2020
For the Respondent-Appellant, James J. Uliano, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Laurie Fichera, Deputy
Attorney General (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection with
appellant Elizabeth Sheehy’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board), dated
November 4, 2020, suspending her Teacher of Blind or Partially Sighted (TBVI) and Teacher of
Handicapped certificates for a period of one year. Following the issuance of an Order to Show Cause
by the Board and a hearing at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) found that while appellant’s actions demonstrated some inefficiency, she did not
intentionally submit false or fraudulent billings, and accordingly dismissed the charges against her.
Thereafter, the Board adopted the factual findings in the Initial Decision, while also reaching the
legal conclusion that appellant had engaged in unbecoming conduct. Consequently, the Board
imposed a penalty of a one-year suspension of appellant’s certificates.
On appeal, appellant argues that the fault in this matter lies with the Freehold
Township school district, which failed to abide by its own policy requiring a contract for services
98-21A

2
provided by independent consultants such as appellant. Appellant contends that the Board
erroneously concluded that she did not bill by mistake, because the ALJ found appellant credible in
her explanations regarding her billing practices and concluded that there was no evidence that she
acted with a knowing purpose or intent to defraud the school district. Additionally, appellant argues
that it was inappropriate for the Board to base her suspension on her alleged failure to comply with
students’ IEPs, as no such allegation was made against her in the Order to Show Cause. Appellant
takes issue with the Board’s conclusion that she had multiple chances to correct her billing issues but
failed to do so, claiming that there is nothing in the record to support that statement. Finally,
appellant argues that a one-year penalty is inconsistent with penalties imposed by the Board in other
matters.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the
Commissioner may not substitute her judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received
due process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.
Further, the Board’s decision should not be disturbed unless the appellant demonstrates that it is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
After a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s
decision was arbitrary and capricious because it incorrectly rejected or modified the ALJ’s credibility
findings. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c), an agency "may not reject or modify any findings of
fact as to issues of credibility of lay witnesses unless it is first determined from a review of the record
that those findings are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient,
competent, and credible evidence in the record.” Moreover, in rejecting or modifying any findings of
fact, the agency must “state with particularity the reasons for rejecting the findings and shall make
new or modified findings supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record.”
Ibid.

3
While the Board states in its decision that it defers to the ALJ’s credibility
determinations, it also makes findings that directly contradict those credibility determinations. The
Board’s decision turns, in large part, on its finding that appellant did not bill by mistake, but
“knowingly overbilled.” That finding is directly contrary to the ALJ’s findings, repeated throughout
the Initial Decision, that appellant’s billing practices were lax and she committed errors, but she did
not knowingly defraud the district. In fact, the Board’s decision explicitly states that appellant’s
“billing failures cannot be explained away as unknowing errors, as stated by ALJ Masin.” This
statement is not a difference in legal conclusions, as the Board asserts, but rather a rejection or
modification of a finding of fact based on the credibility of a witness. While the Board may disagree
with the ALJ that multiple instances of billing errors by appellant were made unknowingly, it is not
permitted to reject or modify the ALJ’s credibility finding without stating with particularity its
reasons for doing so.
The Commissioner is therefore constrained to remand this matter to the Board to
make explicit findings as to whether the ALJ’s assessment of the testimony regarding appellant’s
billing practices was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or was not supported by sufficient,
competent and credible evidence in the record.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the State Board of Examiners for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
May 4, 2021
May 4, 2021