ILNews

Court rules on agency record appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In two separate opinions, the Indiana Court of Appeals tackled the issue of timely and complete filing of an agency record.

In William B. Reedus v. Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, No. 49A02-0808-CV-760, the issue is whether William Reedus' appeal of an order of the Indiana State Employees' Appeals Commission should have contained certain documents. He only attached uncertified copies of the Department of Workforce Development's dismissal letter, the administrative law judge's non-final order with findings and conclusions, the judge's final order, and the DWD's witness and exhibit list for the SEAC hearing. His petition for judicial review of agency action lacked the transcripts or exhibits from the hearing. The trial court dismissed his appeal.

In Indiana Family and Social Services Administration v. Alice V. Meyer, et al., No. 69A01-0807-CV-358, the issue is whether Alice Meyer's trust failed to timely file the agency record after Meyer's Medicaid benefits were denied. The trial court denied the Family and Social Service Agency's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction for failing to timely file the agency record. The trial court also corrected the administrative law judge's mathematical error in calculating the value of the reminder of interest of a farm.

In both appeals, the appellate court examined Indiana Code Section 4-21.5-5-13, which stipulates the means for judicial review of a final agency action and ruled that the phrase "cause for dismissal" means the General Assembly intended to empower, but not require a trial court to dismiss an appeal that doesn't follow statute requirements.

In the Meyer case, there was substantial procedural compliance by the trust and an obvious substantive error in the administrative law decision when it incorrectly determined the value of the remainder interest of a farm, wrote Judge Patricia Riley for the majority. In this case, the appellate court concluded I.C. Section 4-21.5-5-13 doesn't speak to subject matter jurisdiction, doesn't mandate automatic dismissal for procedural error, and must be read to confer the trial court discretion in some circumstances, wrote Judge Riley. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Judge Paul Mathias dissented, writing the timely and complete filing of the agency record is a condition precedent to the acquisition of jurisdiction to consider a petition for judicial review.

In Reedus, the appellate court ruled the trial court didn't abuse its discretion for dismissing Reedus' appeal. Under Administrative Orders and Procedures Act Section 5-13, a petitioner must timely file the documents on which the agency relied in issuing the orders. Reedus argued the transcripts and exhibits he didn't submit weren't necessary for review of the decision, but it's clear from the administrative law judge's order that he relied on the testimony to make his findings. Therefore, Reedus had to file the evidence as required by the AOPA and his petition was inadequate, wrote Judge Riley. In this case, Judge Mathias concurred in result, giving similar reasoning as he did in his dissent in Meyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT