COA upholds dismissal of fired DOT employee’s untimely petition for review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former employee of the Indiana Department of Transportation, who was fired in 2013, untimely filed his petition for judicial review after he was unsuccessful in his administrative appeals and the trial court correctly dismissed his petition, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Thursday.

Andrew Hunter was terminated in November 2013 and exhausted his administrative appeals before firing his petition for judicial review Sept. 16, 2015. This came after the State Employees’ Appeal Commission issued and served by mail on Aug. 13, 2015, a final order affirming the administrative law judge’s ruling in favor of INDOT.

INDOT claimed in its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Ind. Trial R. 12(B)(6), for the first time, that Hunter’s petition was untimely filed. The trial court granted INDOT’s motion after holding a hearing. Hunter filed a motion to correct error, which was denied, leading to this appeal.

The appellate court found Hunter’s petition for judicial review was untimely filed. Under the statute, the 33-day period to file, which includes the three days for service being mailed, the period began on Aug. 14 and ended Sept. 15. Thus, Hunter’s petition filed Sept. 16 was untimely.

Hunter also claimed that untimeliness is an affirmative defense that INDOT had to plead in its response, and therefore, by not doing so, failed to preserve the issue. But even if INDOT failed to preserve the timeliness issue, the trial court nevertheless could have considered the issue and found that Hunter waived his right to judicial review, Judge Terry Crone wrote.   

Hunter also maintained that the trial court should give him a chance to demonstrate good cause to excuse the untimely filing, citing O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965.

“But we find it significant that (Administrative Orders and Procedures Act) ‘establishes the exclusive means for judicial review of an agency action,’ Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-1, and it does not include a provision similar to Appellate Rule 1 that permits deviation from AOPA’s procedural rules. In fact, Indiana Code Section 4-21.5-2-2 provides, ‘Except to the extent precluded by a law, a person may waive any right conferred upon that person by this article. This section does not permit the waiver of any procedural duty imposed by this article,’” Crone wrote. “Thus, there is no mechanism allowing the trial court to resurrect a waived right to judicial review.”

The case is Andrew Hunter v. State of Indiana, Department of Transportation, 49A02-1604-PL-978.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.