Opinion ID: 1584424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: employment status of hearing officer

Text: Betterman claims that the director violated Neb.Rev.Stat. § 84-913.04 (Reissue 1999) because the hearing officer was an employee of the DMV. Section 84-913.04(2) provides that a person who is subject to the authority, direction, or discretion of one who has served as investigator, prosecutor, or advocate in a contested case or in its prehearing stage may not serve as hearing officer unless all parties consent. Betterman's theory is that the director acted as an advocate for the department when responding to the motion to dismiss filed by Betterman with the DMV. See brief for appellant in case No. S-05-638 at 22. On appeal to the district court, Betterman claimed he was denied his right to a hearing before an impartial board because the hearing officer was an employee of the DMV. The court rejected Betterman's argument because he had neither objected to the hearing officer nor presented any evidence on this issue in proceedings before the DMV. In his assignments of error before this court, Betterman asserts that the district court erred in finding that he had waived any objection regarding the hearing officer, in not taking judicial notice that the hearing officer was a DMV employee, and in failing to either dismiss the proceedings or remand the case to the DMV for a determination of the hearing officer's employment status.