The 3 Main Reasons why Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals lose - Part 1 - the Substance Abuse Evaluation
It is my job, as a Michigan driver's license restoration lawyer, to know how to win a case. To accomplish that, I require that a person has really and truly quit drinking as a condition to take his or her case, but I also guarantee that I will win every case I take. Many of my clients have previously tried, either on their own or with some lawyer who says that he or she "does" Michigan license appeals, to win back their driving privileges (or get a clearance), and have lost because of a problem with the substance abuse evaluation. There's a good chance that if you're reading this, you lost a prior license appeal. In this article, we'll look at 1 of the 3 primary reasons why people lose a Michigan driver's license restoration case - the substance abuse evaluation.
This article will be a topical overview of substance abuse evaluations. I have made a detailed examination of just about every aspect of the substance abuse evaluation in other articles on this blog. I could literally write a textbook and still not scratch the surface of the more important facets of substance abuse evaluations. Because the substance abuse evaluation plays such a critical role in a license appeal, my first appointment with a new client takes 3 hours, and almost every minute of that time is spent preparing the person to undergo (and obviously do well on) the substance abuse evaluation. In the big picture of Michigan license reinstatement appeals, the substance abuse evaluation is the foundation.
\Sometimes, even before examining a person's order denying his or her appeal, I will read the substance abuse evaluation filed in the case. Without exception, I can point out the things wrong with it and then explain how and why the hearing officer denied the appeal. Having sat across the desk from countless clients and having read these orders, I even know the specific language often used by particular hearing officers. If your previous substance abuse evaluation caused your case to lose, and it was decided by hearing officer Bandy in Livonia, for example, it is almost certain that within that order, your evaluation is described as "questionable/insufficient."
Hearing officer Modelski (also in Livonia) sometimes uses the language "woefully inadequate." Whatever else, when the hearing officer deciding your case points out where your substance abuse evaluation falls short, you've already lost your case by a wide margin. When you read the order denying your appeal, it can seem like a written inventory of every possible shortcoming regarding your evaluation. As you deal with having to accept being without a license for another year, it can very much feel like the hearing officer was looking for every possible reason to deny your appeal...
If it makes you feel any better, he or she was.
A license appeal is not about a "judgment call." These cases are not won by submitting evidence that's "good enough." Instead, the law requires states that "the hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued to the petitioner unless the petitioner proves, by clear and convincing evidence, all of the following..." Read that again carefully. The hearing officer is being told NOT to grant a license unless things are proven by "clear and convincing evidence." This is a negative mandate. Just change up the wording a little and imagine what a difference it would make if the rule said that "the hearing officer shall issue a license if the petitioner, by clear and convincing evidence, proves all of the following..."