Case Title: Ralph E. Beecher v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

Citation: 2004 WI 131

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 131 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1582 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Ralph E. Beecher,  
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Labor & Industry Review Commission,  
Outokumpu Copper Kenosha, Inc. and  
Fremont Indemnity Co., Insurer, c/o  
Casualty Insurance,  
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2004 WI 88 
Reported at:  273 Wis. 2d 136, 682 N.W.2d 29 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 29, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
  
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). 
BRADLEY, J., joins dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BUTLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 131 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 02-1582    
(L.C. No. 
01CV001356) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Ralph E. Beecher,  
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Labor & Industry Review Commission,  
Outokumpu Copper Kenosha, Inc. and  
Fremont Indemnity Co., Insurer, c/o  
Casualty Insurance,  
 
          Defendants-Respondents- 
          Petitioners. 
 
 
   
FILED 
 
OCT 29, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM. 
The motion for reconsideration is 
denied without costs. 
 
¶2 
LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate. 
 
No.  02-1582.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶3 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  The Labor 
and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) does not ask the court to 
change its mandate.  It asks the court to reconsider that part 
of its opinion holding that judicial review of the agency 
decision is de novo.  In the alternative LIRC seeks an 
opportunity to brief the matter of the appropriate standard of 
review.   
¶4 
Although the standard of review was briefed, neither 
party had the opportunity to brief the novel standard of review 
the majority opinion adopted.  Once again the court bases its 
opinion on a matter not raised or argued by the parties and 
fails to give the parties a chance to be heard.  This failure of 
the appellate process goes directly to our institutional 
integrity, contravenes our adversarial system, and increases the 
likelihood that the court will err.   See also my dissent in the 
reconsideration of Maurin v. Hall, 2004 WI 129, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 
___ N.W.2d ___. 
¶5 
LIRC argues that the new standard of review has 
detrimental policy implications, is confusing, and will lead to 
more litigation and more requests for judicial review.  
¶6 
LIRC has presented several important considerations 
that the majority opinion does not consider.  I agree with LIRC 
that negative consequences result if the court adheres to the 
standard of review presented in the majority opinion.   
¶7 
I would reconsider the discussion of the standard of 
review, and I therefore dissent from the denial of the motion 
for reconsideration and the request for briefing.   
No.  02-1582.ssa 
 
2 
 
 
¶8 
The only saving grace is, in my opinion, that the 
court will not follow the standard of review adopted in the 
majority opinion.  I believe the majority decision will have the 
effect of a railroad ticket, just good for one ride on one day.  
If the court and litigants are wise, they will distinguish and 
disregard this "new standard of review" in future cases.  
¶9 
I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this dissent. 
 
 
No.  02-1582.ssa 
 
1