Federal Administrative Appeals

[Admin]

Footnotes

    Minn. Stat. § 14.61, subd. 1 (2014). Commissioners may delegate authority to file and present argument as a party adversely affected to other officers in the agency. Id. § 15.06, subd. 6. ↑
    Id. § 14.61, subd. 1. ↑
    In re Haugen, 278 N.W.2d 75, 79-80 (Minn. 1979). ↑
    See, e.g., In re Labor Law Violation of Chafoulias Mgmt. Co., 572 N.W.2d 326, 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (finding Commissioner's failure to promulgate procedural rules for filing exceptions did not violate due process where Commissioner rejected relator's exceptions on substantive, not procedural, grounds); Minn. R. 7829.2700 (2013) (governing public utilities commission procedure following ALJ reports). ↑
    R.R. & Warehouse Comm'n v. Chi. & Nw. Ry., 256 Minn. 227, 235, 98 N.W.2d 60, 66 (1959) (dictum). See generally 2 Richard J. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 9.5 (5th ed. 2014). But see In re Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 417 N.W.2d 274, 283 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); In re Determining the Natural Ordinary High Water Level of Lake Pulaski, 384 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). ↑
    See, e.g., Minn. R. 7829.2700, subp. 3 (2013) (granting parties opportunity for oral argument before the public utilities commission following ALJ's report). ↑
    In re Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d 171, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). ↑
    Surf & Sand Nursing Home v. Dep't of Human Servs., 422 N.W.2d 513, 519-20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.50 (2014) (providing that ALJ's report contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation on action to be taken by agency). ↑
    Id. § 14.58. ↑
    Id. §§ 14.60, subd. 2, .62. ↑
    See Hosking v. Metro. House Movers Corp., 272 Minn. 390, 397, 138 N.W.2d 404, 409 (1965) (dictum); Hunter v. Zenith Dredge Co., 220 Minn. 318, 325-28, 19 N.W.2d 795, 799-800 (1945). ↑
    Nevels v. Hanlon, 656 F.2d 372, 376 (8th Cir. 1981); Camero v. United States, 375 F.2d 777, 780-81 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (opining that due process forbids adversary to proceeding from communicating privately with decision maker); see Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265, 276-77 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (dictum); see also Hard Times Café v. City of Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165, 174 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (finding substantial evidence of procedural irregularities where city council members considered evidence outside the record and transferring the case to district court to take testimony); Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.5(g) (forbidding ex parte communications). ↑
    In re Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 417 N.W.2d 274, 280-83 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). ↑
    Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 679 (7th Cir. 1981). ↑
    See Barlau v. City of Northfield, 568 F. Supp. 181, 187 (D. Minn. 1983). ↑
    Simer, 661 F.2d at 679; Barlau, 568 F. Supp. at 186-87. ↑
    Barlau, 568 F. Supp. at 186; see supra text accompanying note 16 (discussing Barlau); see also Simer, 661 F.2d at 680-81. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 4 (2014); see also § 10.4 in this volume. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.60, subd. 4 (2014); see Kollmorgen v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 416 N.W.2d 485, 487-88 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). ↑
    City of Moorhead v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 343 N.W.2d 843, 847 (Minn. 1984) (stating that relationship between agency and ALJ differs in regard to findings of fact from that between appellate court and lower court); Hymanson v. City of St. Paul, 329 N.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Minn. 1983) (dictum); In re Rate Appeal of Elim Homes, Inc., 575 N.W.2d 845, 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (declining to adopt a doctrine of administrative-judicial comity that would require the commissioner to defer to the ALJ's legal expertise, just as courts defer to the commissioner's technical expertise). An agency may, however, delegate final decisionmaking authority to an ALJ. Minn. Stat. § 14.57(a) (2014). ↑
    See First Nat'l Bank v. Dep't of Commerce, 310 Minn. 127, 134, 245 N.W.2d 861, 865 (Minn. 1976); Saif Food Mkt. v. Dep't of Health, 664 N.W.2d 428, 431 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (noting adverse credibility determination by ALJ regarding owner's testimony and observing that the court defers to agency credibility determinations); In re Friedenson, 574 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (finding that board, in deviating from the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law, "did not reject the ALJ's credibility assessments, but rather occasionally disagreed with inferences or conclusions based on testimony"). ↑
    City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 846-47 (citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (hearing examiner's report part of record under Taft-Hartley Act)). ↑
    In re Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d 171, 177 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). ↑
    Petition of N. States Power Gas Util., 519 N.W.2d 921, 926 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994) (citing Minn. Power & Light Co. v. Minn. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 342 N.W.2d 324, 330 (Minn. 1983)). ↑
    In re Excess Surplus Status of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d 264, 278 (Minn. 2001). But see Hurrle v. Cnty. of Sherburne, 594 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (reiterating that decisionmaking entity may not reject expert testimony without adequate reasons). ↑
    City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 847; Big Fish Lake Sportsmen's Club v. Water Res. Bd., 400 N.W.2d 416, 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). ↑
    City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 847; Hymanson v. City of St. Paul, 329 N.W.2d 324, 326-27 (Minn. 1983) (dictum). There are several exceptions created by statute where the agency is bound by the ALJ's findings and conclusions. E.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 182.661, subd. 3 (OSHA citations), .669 (OSHA discrimination cases), 244.052, subd. 6 (sex offender notice), 363A.29, subds. 3, 7 (human rights cases) (2014). ↑
    Excess Surplus of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d at 278 (agency decisionmaker owes no deference to the recommendations of the ALJ); City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 846; In re Application of the Grand Rapids Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 731 N.W.2d 866, 870 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (stating the commission need not defer to ALJ's findings, conclusions, or recommendation). ↑
    See Urban Council on Mobility v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res., 289 N.W.2d 729, 736 (Minn. 1980); PEER v. Minn. Envt'l. Quality Council, 266 N.W.2d 858, 873 (Minn. 1978); Brinks v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 355 N.W.2d 446 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). ↑
    City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 847; In re Friedenson, 574 N.W.2d 463, 467 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998); BAL, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 469 N.W.2d 341, 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (stating that city council may reject or modify ALJ's findings); In re Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d 171, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). But see In re Lidberg, 529 N.W.2d 376, 381 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) (holding commissioner in error for rejecting ALJ's conclusion after adopting ALJ's findings). ↑
    In re N. States Power Co., 440 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). ↑
    Id. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2014). ↑
    City of Moorhead, 343 N.W.2d at 847; In re Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d at 176 (finding appellate court's review more critical where conclusions differ from ALJ's); In re Perron, 437 N.W.2d 92, 96 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989); Dep't of Human Servs. v. Muriel Humphrey Residences, 436 N.W.2d 110, 117 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). ↑
    In re Revocation of the Family Child Care License of Burke, 666 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (finding commissioner of human services abused his discretion in revoking a child care license where ALJ recommended less severe discipline and agency failed to explain how the record supported revocation); In re Sentry Ins. Payback Program, 447 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989); In re Orr, 396 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Five Star Trucking, Inc. v. Minn. Transp. Regulation Bd., 370 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985); Beaty v. Minn. Bd. of Teaching, 354 N.W.2d 466, 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). ↑
    Urban Council on Mobility v. Minn. Dep't of Natural Res., 289 N.W.2d 729, 736 (Minn. 1980). ↑
    In re Lecy, 304 N.W.2d 894, 898-99 (Minn. 1981). ↑
    In re Hutchinson, 440 N.W.2d at 176; see also Kells (BWSR) v. City of Rochester, 597 N.W.2d 332, 339-40 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (upholding agency decision although only five of the seventeen members of the Board of Water and Soil Resources heard oral argument or read the briefs, because the statute specifically requires that appeals on wetland replacement plans must be heard by the five-member dispute resolution committee of the Board). ↑
    See Urban Council on Mobility, 289 N.W.2d at 736 (upholding agency decision where agency staff provided four- or five-hour briefing to agency head); In re Otter Tail Power Co., 417 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (finding agency staff and counsel acted as advisors, making suggestions and recommendations and informing the agency of possibilities based upon their knowledge and expertise). ↑
    Urban Council on Mobility, 289 N.W.2d at 736 ("The nature of the administrative process is such that a division of the agency may properly act as an advocate where the ultimate decision is made by the agency head. So long as the decision-maker remains unbiased, the combination of functions by an agency does not conflict with the dictates of due process."). See generally Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46-55 (1975) (finding combination of adjudicative and investigative functions in an agency does not constitute a due process violation except where, against a presumption of administrative regularity, a showing of disqualifiable bias such that a neutral decisionmaker is not presiding has been made). ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 214.10, subd. 2 (2014). ↑
    See Richview Nursing Home v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 354 N.W.2d 445, 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 13D (2014). The open meeting law is not applicable to agencies, boards, or commissions when they are exercising quasi-judicial powers involving disciplinary proceedings. Id. § 13D.01, subd. 2. ↑
    In re Lecy, 304 N.W.2d 894, 899 (Minn. 1981). ↑
    Id. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2014). ↑
    Id.; Carter v. Olmsted Cnty. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 574 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (a decision not supported by proper findings is considered "prima facie arbitrary"). Even if the APA did not require such findings, it has been held that due process would require them. State ex rel. Harris v. Annuity & Pension Bd., 87 Wis. 2d 646, 660-61, 275 N.W.2d 668, 676 (1979). ↑
    See PEER v. Minn. Envt'l. Quality Council, 266 N.W.2d 858, 871-72 (Minn. 1978); Bryan v. Cmty. State Bank, 285 Minn. 226, 232, 172 N.W.2d 771, 775 (1969). Even in a situation where the APA does not require written findings, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has required them. See Reserve Mining Co. v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 364 N.W.2d 411, 414 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (holding agency decision to include disputed term in discharge permit proceeding to be arbitrary and capricious, because no written findings and reasons were prepared and agency had no opportunity to seek contested case status of the matter); In re Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 374 N.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), rev'd in part, 386 N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 1986). ↑
    Bryan, 285 Minn. at 233, 172 N.W.2d at 775-76; Morey v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 492, 271 Minn. 445, 450, 136 N.W.2d 105, 108 (1965); Carter, 574 N.W.2d at 729. ↑
    Morey, 271 Minn. at 450, 136 N.W.2d at 108. ↑
    Id. In the case of a county decision on a plat application, the court of appeals observed that an entity need not necessarily prepare formal findings of fact, but it must, at a minimum, have reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing, and in more than just a conclusory fashion. Hurrle v. Cnty. of Sherburne, 594 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). ↑
    Morey, 271 Minn. at 450, 136 N.W.2d at 108; State v. Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 204 Minn. 516, 524, 284 N.W. 294, 301 (1939). ↑
    See Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2014). ↑
    The Minnesota APA contrasts, in this respect, with the federal APA, which requires that all decisions include a statement of the "findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3) (2012) (emphasis added). ↑
    In re Lecy, 304 N.W.2d 894, 899 (Minn. 1981). ↑
    See Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 240 Minn. at 524, 284 N.W. at 301; see also Lecy, 304 N.W.2d at 899. ↑
    Tri-State Tel. & Tel. Co., 204 Minn. at 524, 284 N.W. at 301; see also Lecy, 304 N.W.2d at 899. ↑
    See PBGC v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 655-56 (1990) (finding determination by the agency was lawfully made by informal adjudication, governed by federal APA in 5 U.S.C. § 555(e), which does not require findings or reasons to support decision, because courts cannot require an agency to use procedures greater than those required by statute or by due process); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974) (finding minimum due process requirements for justifying deprivation of prisoner's good time and placement in solitary confinement include a written statement of evidence and reasons, though formal findings are unnecessary); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487 (1972) (finding minimum due process requirements for parole revocation include written statement about evidence relied on and reasons for revocation, although no formal findings are necessary); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970) (finding minimum due process requirements for termination of AFDC payments, although not necessitating formal findings, include statement of reasons and evidence relied on).
    Some commentators have questioned, however, whether "findings" requirements are constitutionally required at all and have suggested that due process requires them only in special circumstances. Clearly, courts do not make findings in all cases. See 1 Richard J. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise § 8.5 (5th ed. 2010). But see Cole v. Metro. Council HRA, 686 N.W.2d 334, 338 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that, under federal regulations, a recipient of assistance is entitled to a written decision that briefly states the reasons for the determination; although the findings were somewhat vague, they were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review). ↑
    See Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 271. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a (2014). ↑
    Id. § 14.61, subd. 2. ↑
    See, e.g., id. §§ 216B.16, subd. 2 (public utilities commission – gas and electric); 237.075, subd. 2 (public utilities commission – telephone) (2014); see also Henry v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 209, 213-14 (Minn. 1986) (finding 10-month time limit on telephone rate decisions of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is a limit upon the time within which rates may be suspended and not a temporal limit on the commission's jurisdiction that would operate to divest the commission of jurisdiction over the proceeding upon the expiration of 10 months); In re Eigenheer, 453 N.W.2d 349, 354-55 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (finding Commissioner's order issued after statutory 60 days from hearing was not void where statute is directive and not mandatory). ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1 (2014). In fact, if an agency order is served upon a party's attorney, but not the party herself, the order has not been "issued" for purposes of starting the appeal period. In re Findings of Abuse of D.F.C. v. Comm'r. of Health, 693 N.W.2d 451, 454-55 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (acknowledging that under normal district court rules, service on the attorney is sufficient; but noting that some human services statutes require service on both the party and the attorney and finding it inconsistent to interpret the service required for the commissioner's order differently); see also Reynolds v. Dep't of Human Servs., 737 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) (applying rules of civil procedure to informal adjudicative decision, allowing additional three days to the statutory appeal time for persons served by the agency by mail). ↑
    See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 150A.08, subd. 3a (costs in dental license actions), 237.075, subd. 10 (costs in PUC proceeding) (2014); In re Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488, 495-96 (Minn. 1989). See generally In re Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 374 N.W.2d 758, 761-62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (analyzing whether costs claimed by intervenor were or were not allowed by applicable public utility statute). ↑
    Wang, 441 N.W.2d at 495-96. ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 15.471, subd. 4 (2014). ↑
    Id.; Wang, 441 N.W.2d at 497. ↑
    See Minn. Stat § 14.64 (2014). The statute provides:
    If a request for reconsideration is made within ten days after the decision and order of the agency, the 30-day period provided in section 14.63 [for a writ of certiorari for judicial review] shall not begin to run until service of the order finally disposing of the application for reconsideration.
    Id.; see also Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 374 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (noting that once a request to rehear has been made by at least one party to the proceeding, the 30-day appeal period does not begin to run as to all parties until service of the order disposing of the application). ↑
    See, e.g., Minn. R. 7829.3000 (2013) (public utilities commission). ↑
    See, e.g., id. 7829.3000-.3200; Henry v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 209, 214-15 (Minn. 1986) (discussing telephone rate proceeding rehearing requirements). ↑
    Minn. R. 1400.8300 (2013) (providing that ALJ may permit less than 30 days' notice prior to rehearing). ↑
    Id. ↑
    Henry, 392 N.W.2d at 214 (finding Minn. Stat. § 216A.05, subd. 5, authorized MPUC to reopen hearing on own motion to avoid cost of retrying issues); Plunkett v. First Nat'l Bank of Austin, 262 Minn. 231, 246 n.6, 115 N.W.2d 235, 245 n.6 (1962) (dictum); Pfalzgraff v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 350 N.W.2d 458, 460 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). ↑
    Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bongards Co-op. Creamery Ass'n, 253 Minn. 101, 106, 91 N.W.2d 122, 126 (1958); see also State ex rel. Turnbladh v. Dist. Court, 259 Minn. 228, 236, 107 N.W.2d 307, 313 (1960); In re Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 417 N.W.2d 274, 281-82 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). ↑
    Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 417 N.W.2d at 282; see also In re Class A License Application of N. Metro Harness, Inc., 711 N.W.2d 129, 136 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006); In re Authority to Provide Alt. Operator Servs. in Minn., 490 N.W.2d 920, 925 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). ↑
    Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 417 N.W.2d at 280-83. ↑
    See Stepan v. Campbell, 228 Minn. 74, 78-79, 36 N.W.2d 401, 404 (1949). ↑
    Id. ↑
    Anchor Cas. Co., 253 Minn. at 106, 91 N.W.2d at 126 (finding that case law prior to adoption of ten-day filing requirement by Minn. Stat. § 14.64 allowed petition to be filed within reasonable time; time within which appeal could be filed has been said to be reasonable; therefore, request for rehearing or reconsideration under law before § 14.64 was timely as long as time for appeal had not expired; prejudice to other interested parties was also consideration in determining timeliness of application). The agency's authority to amend its decision also expires when the appeal period has ended and no appeal has been filed. See, e.g., Rowe v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev't, 704 N.W.2d 191, 196 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (finding ULJ lacked authority to amend decision sua sponte because the 30-day appeal period had expired and by statute the ULJ's decision became a final decision of the Department if no appeal was filed); cf. N. Metro Harness, 711 N.W.2d at 135 (recognizing agency's inherent authority to reopen, rehear, and redetermine a decision if time for appeal has not yet expired). ↑
    See Henry v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 392 N.W.2d 209, 215 (Minn. 1986). ↑
    Minn. Stat. § 14.64 (2014). ↑
    The Work Connection, Inc. v. Bui, 749 N.W.2d 63, 66-67 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). ↑

← Chapter 13. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and Contested Case Hearings
Chapter 15. Judicial Review of Contested Cases →