Opinion ID: 2057458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the AAA

Text: The Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA) (repealed effective July 1, 1987) established a uniform method of administrative adjudication by all agencies of the state of Indiana ... [and] a uniform method of court review of all such administrative adjudication. Ind. Code § 4-22-1-1. Indiana Code § 4-22-1-2 excludes from the definition of administrative adjudication the dismissal or discharge of an officer or employee by a superior officer, but includ[es] hearings on discharge or dismissal of an officer or employee for cause where the law authorizes or directs such hearing. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the Department's regulations did not provide for judicial review of Dixon's dismissal. Indiana Code § 4-22-1-14(a) provides that [a]ny party or person aggrieved by an order or determination made by any such agency shall be entitled to a judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A few cases hold that judicial review under this section covers all administrative orders, decisions, or determinations not clearly and unambiguously excepted therefrom, regardless of whether the agency action was excluded from administrative adjudication. Warram v. Stanton (1981), Ind. App., 415 N.E.2d 114, 116. Accord Zehner v. Indiana State Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n (1977), 173 Ind. App. 600, 364 N.E.2d 1037 (relying on State ex rel. Calumet Nat'l Bank v. McCord (1963), 243 Ind. 626, 189 N.E.2d 583, which construed earlier AAA). These cases, however, fail to recognize that the plain language of § 4-22-1-1 restricts the applicability of the AAA to judicial review of all administrative adjudication, which does not include, under § 4-22-1-2, certain employee dismissals. [1] The non-applicability of the AAA does not leave an aggrieved person without recourse to judicial review of administrative action. See Suttmiller v. City of Batesville (1967), 248 Ind. 391, 393, 226 N.E.2d 893 (in absence of statutory provision for review, an action for declaratory or injunctive relief will lie). Further, the constitutional right to review of administrative action exists to the extent necessary to ensure due process protection of property and liberty interests. See Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399. See generally Wilson v. Board of Indiana Employment Security Div. (1979), 270 Ind. 302, 385 N.E.2d 438, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 874, 100 S.Ct. 155, 62 L.Ed.2d 101 (interests meriting due process protection). This Court should conclude that the employee Dixon does not have a right to review of his dismissal under the AAA.