I've been asked to weigh in again here, because no one has answered. As I'm sure you recall, I didn't have anything more to offer on this issue. However, where I believe you are at here is that you will not find a resolution for you issue in the case law.
Your issue is largely about how a court would view the fairness of the process under the constitutional microscope. In Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319, a case involving the administrative termination of Social Security disability benefits, the United States Supreme Court articulated a balancing test for resolving what process is constitutionally due. It reiterated: “ ‘[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.’ Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 [33 L. Ed. 2d 484,XXXXX 2593, 2600] (1972)Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 [33 L. Ed. 2d 484,XXXXX 2593, 2600] (1972).” (Id. at p. 334.) “[T]he Court set forth three factors that normally determine whether an individual has received the ‘process’ that the Constitution finds ‘due’: [¶] ‘First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.’ [¶] By weighing these concerns, courts can determine whether a State has met the ‘fundamental requirement of due process’—‘the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ’ Id., at 333 [96 S. Ct. 893].” (Los Angeles v. David (2003) 538 U.S. 715, 716–717 [155 L. Ed. 2d 946,XXXXX 1895].)
The importance of the above test is two fold: It provides the court with an analytical framework for determining whether or not an administrative decision was fairly considered; and the extremely ambiguity of the test shows that a court can pretty much make whatever decision it wishes by crafting an analysis to produce a desired outcome.
This leads me to the reason for this answer. Your issue requires a strong orator who is capable of making a convincing emotional argument before the court -- rather than a legal argument where the law manifestly favors your position -- because, the law in this area is extremely vague, and that leaves the issue within the broad discretion of the court.
I do not believe that you will find your answer in case law, as much as you will find it in the ability of an advocate to convince a court that you have been unfairly treated.
Hope this helps.
NOTICE: My goal here is to educate others about the law. I am always available to answer your follow-up questions after you click Accept – however, if you do not click Accept, the website gets paid, and I receive nothing. This is true, even if you are on a subscription plan. So please click Accept, so that I will be able to continue to provide this service for others in the future.
And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“To Socrateaser”), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!