Opinion ID: 2634596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the district court's refusal to remand was an abuse of discretion.

Text: Remand under the KJRA is discretionary. K.S.A. 77-622(b). Sunflower Racing, Inc. v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs, 256 Kan. 426, 447, 885 P.2d 1233 (1994). Within 30 days after service of the petition for judicial review, the agency shall transmit the original or a copy of the agency record, and the court may permit subsequent additions to the record. K.S.A. 77-620(a) and (f). Additional evidence in addition to the agency record may be added if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding the unlawfulness of procedure or of a decision-making process. K.S.A. 77-619(a)(2). (b) The State agency record consists only of: (1) Notices of all proceedings; (2) any prehearing order; (3) any motions, pleadings, briefs, petitions, requests, and intermediate rulings; (4) evidence received or considered; (5) a statement of matters officially noticed; (6) proffers of proof and objections and rulings thereon; (7) proposed findings, requested orders and exceptions; (8) the record prepared for the presiding officer at the hearing, together with any transcript of all or part of the hearing considered before final disposition of the proceeding; (9) any final order, initial order, or order on reconsideration; and (10) staff memoranda or data submitted to the presiding officer. (c) Except to the extent that this act or another statute provides otherwise, the state agency record, excluding matters under paragraph (10) of subsection (b), constitutes the exclusive basis for state agency action in formal hearings and for judicial review thereof. K.S.A. 77-532. The trial court memorandum decision and order was filed on December 16, 2002, and Butanda filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals. On June 6, 10, and 11, 2003, Butanda filed a request and two amended requests with the district court for additions to the agency record pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 3.02 (2003 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 20) and K.S.A. 77-532. Butanda argued that an incomplete agency record had been delivered to the clerk's office, and she listed 22 items which had either been admitted into evidence at the fraud and abuse hearing, or were other motions and orders. Of significance to this appeal, the motion seeking to recuse the hearing officer and the order denying the same, the petition and order denying mandamus involving Butanda's desire to depose the director, the November 28, 2000, Board order, and the summary order were added to the record on appeal. The record on appeal includes 26 items added to the appeal record. Butanda seeks a remand, claiming that these items were not before the district court when it issued its December 16, 2002, order. Butanda argues that the absence of some of these items from the agency record before the district court prevented it from adequately addressing her claims regarding alienage and due process. Regarding alienage, Butanda argues that the district court did not have the November 9, 1999, and November 28, 2000, Board orders, that the hearing officer relied upon the Board's findings in the amended order, and that the amended order was affirmed in the final order. As such, she contends the district court was unable to determine whether alienage had been part of the earlier decisions without these portions of the record on appeal. Contrary to Butanda's assertion, the November 9, 1999, order was part of the agency record before the district court. Additionally, although not signed and dated, the November 28, 2000, order was also part of the agency record in its entirety. Even if these orders were not before the trial court, its conclusions that alienage played no part was the correct determination. Thus, her argument fails. Butanda also argues that the district court could not adequately consider her due process claims without the inclusion of the refusal of the hearing officer to recuse himself, the denial of Butanda's request to take the director's deposition, and the summary order. The additions to the record indicate that Butanda filed a motion asking the hearing officer to recuse himself because he refused to issue a subpoena for the director and because he works under the supervision of the director. The hearing officer denied the motion, reasoning that he was an outside attorney working under contract for the Division of Workers Compensation to hear fraud and abuse cases; that he was not an employee of the Division and the director was not his supervisor; that the reasons for dismissal of the subpoena had been addressed in a previous order; that Judge Bullock's dicta was not applicable because an evidentiary hearing was going to be held; and that no bias, prejudice, or interest had been alleged or proven in order for him to be disqualified under K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 77-514. As discussed above, even if these items were included in the agency record, the district court would have reached the same conclusion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to remand this case for additions to the record. Affirmed. LUCKERT, J., not participating. PATRICK McANANY, J., assigned. [1]