Rebuttal to DOR’s Statement of Position
Claimant: Garrett Madden | DOR Case No.: 577053 | Hearing No.: SHN-105316215
DOR’s Statement of Position dated: October 6, 2026 | This rebuttal prepared: October 9, 2026
Each section below states one position from DOR’s Statement of Position, answers it, and lists only the exhibits that support that answer. Exhibit files open individually. The complete files are in the document library.
Rebuttal ready for the hearing
Everything below is sourced from the record. No separate research needed.
★The central issue: vehicle purchase to maintain stabilized employment
Why this is first
The core of this complaint is Mr. Madden’s request that DOR purchase a vehicle so he could maintain stabilized employment. DOR addressed it in its Statement of Position. The response is not factual, and DOR never issued the written denial Mr. Madden needs to exercise his appeal rights. Everything else in this rebuttal supports this central point.
DOR’s position
“Additionally, Mr. Madden has requested, and presently requests, that DOR purchase a vehicle for him. That request is denied as, pursuant to CCR § 7164, DOR consumers must meet all criteria listed in the regulation. Additionally, pursuant to CCR § 7164.2, consumers must be considered financially able to operate, maintain and replace the vehicle based on their actual or projected disposable income. Mr. Madden does not meet the criteria because Mr. Madden recently reported that he is not employed and doesn’t consistently earn a paycheck while in the apprenticeship program.”— SOP, Conclusion
Rebuttal
The request. On June 17, 2026, before the two-month rental period began, Mr. Madden asked DOR for vehicle purchase assistance specifically so he could keep getting to work after the rental ended. The purpose was maintaining stabilized employment. The gap he was trying to prevent is the gap that then occurred: zero authorized transportation from August 15 onward, $1,148.23 paid out of pocket.
The factual basis is wrong. Mr. Madden never reported “I am not employed.” His October 5, 9:57 AM email describes the ABC NorCal registered apprenticeship’s alternating paid on-the-job training and mandatory unpaid classroom phases, and states his last paid day was September 11, 2026. ABC NorCal’s own work report, logged October 1, shows 112 hours worked in September 2026. He forwarded it to DOR on October 6 at 3:42 PM, before the SOP was finalized. The “not an employee” theory first appears in DOR’s own October 6, 1:28 PM email, framed conditionally (“If you are not considered an employee…”). It is DOR’s speculation, not his statement.
No written denial was ever issued. Mr. Madden demanded the denial in writing on June 24, 2026, in his July 1 formal grievance, and again on October 6, 2026. No written denial with appeal rights has been issued. Without it, he cannot exercise the appeal rights the law guarantees.
The merits were never adjudicated. DOR’s denial cites only the employment prong of 9 CCR § 7164. The regulation requires findings on all of its criteria, including whether alternate transportation was explored and documented. DOR’s own record contains evidence on that point: it authorized the rental precisely because no public transit could reach the job site before his 7:00 AM start. A proper written denial would have had to address each criterion with findings. None was issued.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-5 — Oct 5, 9:57 AM: apprenticeship structure, his actual words
- Exhibit R-12 — Oct 6, 1:28 PM: “not an employee” theory originates with DOR
- Exhibit R-14a — 112 hours worked, September 2026 (program’s own records)
- Exhibit R-14b — Laborer Core 1 enrollment, Sept 21–25
- Exhibit R-14c — Intro to Apprenticeship enrollment, Aug 27
- Exhibit R-2 — Jun 24: written denial demanded
- Exhibit R-4 — Jul 1: grievance over missing written decisions
- Exhibit R-11 — Oct 6: asks for official denial letter
- Exhibit R-15 — the gap the request was meant to prevent: $1,148.23 out of pocket
Attachments sent to DOR
- ABC NorCal apprentice record — sent to DOR: status Apprentice effective 6/15/2026, Auburn Constructors LLC, Construction Craft Laborer
- New assignment email — Aug 28, 2026 to Peter Han (DOR): new assignment 47.5 miles from residence; requests continued transportation support to keep working without interruption
Authorities
1“Least costly method” during training
DOR’s position
“DOR provided Mr. Madden with appropriate transportation services using the least costly method that met his needs at the time of his training, pursuant to CCR § 7161.”— SOP, Conclusion. Background: “Mr. Madden did not report any physical disabilities that prevent him from utilizing public transportation… The public transportation option available to him included a 38-minute walk to the nearest bus-stop and two bus transfers. The estimated arrival time using public transportation was roughly 7:30 AM.”
Rebuttal
The objection was travel time, not physical capability: 108 to 194 minutes with two transfers and a 38-minute walk, to arrive around 7:30 AM for an 8:00 AM training. CCR § 7162 requires evaluating proximity, frequency, and whether the commute creates an undue hardship. The April 29, 2026 administrative review request raised this directly; the May 26 decision did not address it on those terms.
The “least costly” standard in § 7161(c) requires the mode to meet the individual’s needs, not merely be cheapest. DOR’s own SOP concedes that for the June job placement “there were no available public transportation routes that can get him to his job site before his start time.”
Exhibits
- Exhibit X-1 — Administrative Review Decision, May 26, 2026 (with DR1000 and decision document)
Authorities
2Two months’ support; “acted promptly”
DOR’s position
“Upon receiving notice of his employment status, DOR acted promptly to offer guidance regarding available transportation options to support him during the first two months of his employment.”— SOP, Conclusion
Rebuttal
Mr. Madden requested vehicle purchase assistance on June 17, 2026, before the rental period began. The June 24 response was an informal email, bundled with an attempt to get him to withdraw his separate mediation/fair hearing request. He refused the withdrawal in writing the same day and demanded the denial in writing. No formal written denial with appeal rights was ever issued.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-2 — Jun 24, 2026: demands the denial in writing; separates training vs. work transportation
- Exhibit R-3 — Jun 27, 2026: DR 107 appeal active; unrequested withdrawal rejected same day
- Exhibit R-4 — Jul 1, 2026: formal grievance over missing written decisions
Authorities
3One-month rule; “should have planned”
DOR’s position
“In accordance with CCR § 7161.5, consumers are generally deemed financially capable of assuming responsibility for transportation costs after one month of pay… With the advance notice, he should have planned accordingly for travel to his worksite thereafter.”— SOP, Conclusion
Rebuttal
CCR § 7161.5(a) deems a client financially capable “after the client has received one full month of salary or wages,” which assumes steady, continuous wages. The ABC NorCal registered apprenticeship alternates paid on-the-job training with mandatory, unpaid classroom training. Last paid day: September 11, 2026. No wages received since, through no fault of his own.
Section 7161.5(e) provides: “In no instance shall a case… remain open solely because a client is not financially capable of assuming the cost of transportation.” Where hardship is established, the regulation contemplates continued services, not limbo.
He did plan: the June 17 vehicle purchase request was submitted before the rental period began to prevent exactly this gap.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-5 — Oct 5, 9:57 AM: apprenticeship structure in his own words
- Exhibit R-14a — ABC NorCal work report: 112 hours, September 2026
Authorities
4Third month “under review”
DOR’s position
“His request for continued car rental services remains under review as Mr. Madden provided new and additional information that warrants additional discussion.”— SOP, Conclusion
Rebuttal
The review sat open August 10 to October 9 (DOR’s own deadline) with zero authorized transportation from August 15 onward. In that window Mr. Madden paid $1,148.23 out of pocket: a Turo rental September 7–14 ($429.95) and a second Turo rental September 20–October 4 ($718.28), documented with receipts and bank statements provided to DOR.
The “new information” was his answer to DOR’s own questions. The delay reflects DOR’s shifting document demands: his September 1 email documents conflicting requests from different staff, and DOR first required bank statements to verify expenses, then declared bank statements unusable for that purpose.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-8 — Oct 5 formal complaint: shifting documentation standards
- Exhibit R-13 — Oct 6: Turo $429.95 receipt documented; notes repeated questions
- Exhibit R-15 — Oct 6: borrowing to rent; $1,148.23 total; impact statement
Attachments sent to DOR
- Turo rental receipts — sent to DOR: rental confirmations and receipts for the self-funded transportation
Authorities
5“Not employed” claim
DOR’s position
“That request is denied as, pursuant to CCR § 7164, DOR consumers must meet all criteria listed in the regulation… Mr. Madden does not meet the criteria because Mr. Madden recently reported that he is not employed and doesn’t consistently earn a paycheck while in the apprenticeship program.”— SOP, Conclusion
Rebuttal
Mr. Madden never said “I am not employed.” His October 5, 9:57 AM email describes the apprenticeship’s alternating paid and mandatory unpaid phases and states his last paid day was September 11, 2026.
Before the SOP was finalized, DOR received ABC NorCal’s own work report showing 112 hours worked in September 2026 (forwarded October 6, 3:42 PM to Zapanta, Keller, and Somalal), plus two program enrollment emails corroborating the structure he described.
The “not an employee” theory first appears in the record on October 6 at 1:28 PM, in Kamie Zapanta’s email, framed conditionally (“If you are not considered an employee…”), hours after Mr. Madden declined a broad release of his training records. It is DOR’s speculation, not his statement.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-5 — Oct 5, 9:57 AM: his actual words
- Exhibit R-12 — Oct 6, 1:28 PM: theory’s origin, in DOR’s words
- Exhibit R-14a — 112 hours, September 2026 (program’s own records)
- Exhibit R-14b — Laborer Core 1 enrollment, Sept 21–25
- Exhibit R-14c — Intro to Apprenticeship enrollment, Aug 27
Authorities
6“Not transparent” claim
DOR’s position
“There have been occasions when Mr. Madden was not transparent, forthcoming, and providing complete and accurate information… Mr. Madden provided inaccurate or incomplete information regarding his training and employment status and, was not fully transparent about his living and financial circumstances.”— SOP, Conclusion (citing § 7029.9)
Rebuttal
Each disclosure was specific, dated, and followed by documentation: living situation (mid-September and October 5), apprenticeship structure (October 5), bank records, paystubs, the DR 233, an income and living expense table, and full billing statements for June through August.
DOR escalated its demands after he answered, including a sweeping release to contact his training program directly. He set a boundary on that release and offered a reasonable alternative: ABC NorCal’s public information line. He asked that communication stay by email because he is unavailable by phone during work hours (8 AM–4 PM), as communicated from the start.
DOR referred Mr. Madden to ABC NorCal. The program’s structure was available to DOR through its own referral relationship.
Exhibits
- Exhibit R-7 — Oct 5, 4:46 PM: DOR demands meeting + release
- Exhibit R-9 — Oct 5: “extremely invasive”; DOR referred him to the program
- Exhibit R-10 — Oct 6, 8:35 AM: release demanded by COB
- Exhibit R-11 — Oct 6, 10:14 AM: declines release; asks for denial letter
Attachments sent to DOR
- Financial records sent to DOR — bank statement, 2025 lease, ATT bills (June–August), Conservice bills: the documentation DOR requested
Authorities
7Background claims
DOR’s position
“He was initially offered $50.00 to purchase a discounted bus pass… $100 to purchase the SacRT general pass… Subsequently, Mr. Madden submitted a request for Administrative Review… The Administrative Review decision upheld counselor’s decision… and offered him… mileage reimbursement at 21-cents per mile… He elected to go with the mileage.”— SOP, Background and Facts
Rebuttal
The May 26 administrative review decision did not address the argument actually made on April 29: that § 7162 requires evaluating proximity, frequency, and undue hardship. Restating the “least costly” conclusion does not answer the hardship argument.
The listed alternatives did not meet his needs, a point DOR itself conceded for the June job placement when it acknowledged no public transit could reach the site before his 7:00 AM start, which is why it authorized the car rental.
Exhibits
- Exhibit X-1 — Administrative Review Decision, May 26, 2026
Authorities
8DOR’s failures to follow the law
Failure 1 — No written denial with appeal rights
The June 24, 2026 vehicle-purchase denial was an informal email. Repeated written requests for a formal denial notice, most recently October 6, 2026, were never answered. 29 U.S.C. § 722(c) requires written notice of review rights upon reduction, suspension, or cessation of services. 9 CCR §§ 7353 and 7354 run appeal clocks from written denials and require written, reasoned decisions with appeal-rights notice.
- Exhibit R-2 — denial demanded in writing
- Exhibit R-4 — grievance: no written decisions
Failure 2 — Services frozen while review sat open
Zero authorized transportation from August 15 to October 9 while the hardship review sat open. 34 C.F.R. § 361.57(b)(4) prohibits suspending services while a review is pending. 9 CCR § 7351 makes agency inaction independently appealable.
Failure 3 — Findings without evidence
The SOP’s “reported that he is not employed” finding cites no evidence. Topanga, 11 Cal.3d 506, requires findings to bridge the gap between evidence and decision.
- Exhibit R-5 — his actual words
Failure 4 — Attempted withdrawal of appeal without consent
The June 24 “Withdrawal of mediation and fair hearing request” email was never requested. The June 16 DR 107 sought both mediation and a fair hearing. He rejected the withdrawal in writing the same day. 9 CCR § 7353.6 confirms the two run concurrently.
- Exhibit R-3 — DR 107; withdrawal rejected
9Timeline of key events
10Document library
- DOR’s Statement of Position20 pages — October 6, 2026, Kamie Zapanta. The document rebutted above.
- Rebuttal exhibits R-1 through R-15 (complete)65 pages — all claimant exhibits in one file.
- Complete DOR email paper trail141 pages — 20 emails with attachments, October 2025–October 2026, from gmadden79@gmail.com and garrettmadden479@gmail.com.
Attachments sent to DOR
- ABC NorCal apprentice record8 pages — employment proof sent to DOR: Apprentice status effective 6/15/2026, Auburn Constructors LLC, Construction Craft Laborer.
- New assignment email1 page — Aug 28, 2026 to Peter Han (DOR): 47.5-mile assignment; requests continued transportation support.
- Turo rental receipts14 pages — rental confirmations and receipts for self-funded transportation, sent to DOR.
- Financial records sent to DORZIP — bank statement, 2025 lease, ATT bills (June–August), Conservice bills.
Individual exhibits
- R-1Jun 18, 2026 — reports Roseville job placement
- R-2Jun 24, 2026 — demands written denial; separates training vs. work transportation
- R-3Jun 27, 2026 — DR 107 appeal active; withdrawal rejected
- R-4Jul 1, 2026 — formal grievance: no written decisions
- R-5Oct 5, 9:57 AM — apprenticeship structure, his words
- R-6Oct 5 — DOR’s October 9 bills deadline
- R-7Oct 5, 4:46 PM — DOR reframes; demands meeting + release
- R-8Oct 5 — formal complaint: shifting standards
- R-9Oct 5 — “extremely invasive”; DOR made the referral
- R-10Oct 6, 8:35 AM — release demanded by COB
- R-11Oct 6, 10:14 AM — declines release; asks for denial letter
- R-12Oct 6, 1:28 PM — “not considered an employee” theory originates
- R-13Oct 6 — “don’t believe I’m in the program?”; Turo documented
- R-14aOct 1 — 112 hours worked, September 2026
- R-14bLaborer Core 1 enrollment, Sept 21–25
- R-14cIntro to Apprenticeship enrollment, Aug 27
- R-15Oct 6 — borrowing to rent; $1,148.23; impact
- X-1May 26, 2026 — Administrative Review Decision