Opinion ID: 1237882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: adjudicative capacity of dhss.

Text: The court of appeals also held that section 814.245(3) . . . does not allow attorney fees and costs to be assessed against an agency acting in its adjudicative capacity. Id. 145 Wis. 2d at 333. By tracing the various interrelated statutes, secs. 814.245(3), 227.485(6), 227.485(5), and 227.485(3), Stats., the court of appeals concluded because the DHSS was not a `party' within the meaning of sec. 227.485(3) and Sheely never moved the hearing examiner for costs, as required under 227.485(3), the prerequisites for a `proceeding for judicial review under s. 227.485(6)' do not exist. Id. 145 Wis. 2d at 335. Section 814.245(3), Stats., provides: 814.245 Actions by state agencies . . .. (3) If an individual, a small nonprofit corporation or a small business is the prevailing party in any action by a state agency or in any proceeding for judicial review under s. 227.485(6) and submits a motion for costs under this section, the court shall award costs to the prevailing party, unless the court finds that the state agency was substantially justified in taking its position or that special circumstances exist that would make the award unjust. Section 227.485(6), Stats., provides: 227.485 Costs to certain prevailing parties .... (6) A final decision under sub. (5) is subject to judicial review under s. 227.52. If the individual . . . is the prevailing party in the proceeding for judicial review, the court shall make the findings applicable under s. 814.245 and, if appropriate, award costs related to that proceeding under s. 814.245, regardless of who petitions for judicial review. In addition, the court on review may modify the order for payment of costs in the final decision under sub. (5). Section 227.485(5), Stats., states in part: (5) The decision on the merits of the case shall be placed in a proposed decision and submitted under s. 227.47 and 227.48 . . . The hearing examiner shall determine the amount of costs using the criteria specified in s. 814.245(5) and include an order for payment of costs in the final decision. (Emphasis added.). The court of appeals interpreted sec. 227.485(5), Stats., and sec. 227.485(3) as only applying to situations where costs were requested by a party at an administrative hearing. Section 227.485(5), however, includes a decision on the merits as also being a final decision. If the court of appeals' interpretation that a final decision is only a decision in which a hearing examiner rendered a decision on costs is correct, then the final sentence of sec. 227.485(5) (The hearing examiner shall determine the amount of costs . . . and include an order for payment of costs in the final decision.), becomes superfluous and absurd. Judge Sundby reached this very conclusion in his dissent. Sheely, 145 Wis. 2d at 338-39. Such a construction is to be avoided. Laridaen v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 259 Wis. 178, 182, 47 N.W.2d 727 (1951) (statutes which are strictly construed should nevertheless be construed to avoid an absurd result). [5, 6] A statute is ambiguous, if more than one reasonable meaning can be attributed to a statute. West Allis School Dist. v. DILHR, 116 Wis. 2d 410, 418-19, 342 N.W.2d 415 (1984). To construe a statute which is ambiguous, the intent of the legislature in using the word or phrase should be determined by examining its scope, history, context, subject matter, and objective. Id. 116 Wis. 2d at 419. The Legislative Reference Bureau Analysis of 1985 Special Session Senate Bill 10, which was enacted and created sec. 814.245, Stats., states: This bill provides procedures for awarding a more complete recovery of actual costs for individuals and small businesses if they prevail in an administrative contested case proceeding or judicial review of a contested case proceeding, regardless of who initiates the proceeding or review . . .. This analysis was present on the bill when the legislature voted on it and this court has held such an analysis as significant in determining legislative intent. West Allis School Dist., 116 Wis. 2d at 422. In Berman v. Schweiker, 713 F.2d 1290, 1297 (7th Cir. 1983), the purposes of the EAJA were discussed: The purposes of the Act are threefold: (1) to encourage private litigants to pursue their administrative and civil actions against the government and not be deterred by the prospect of having to absorb the cost of their own attorneys' fees; (2) to compensate parties for the cost of defending against unreasonable government action; and (3) to deter the federal government from prosecuting or defending cases in which its position is not substantially justified. [7] To adopt the court of appeals' interpretation of the statute would clearly frustrate the intention of the legislature when it was enacted. Under the court of appeals' reasoning, one could only collect attorney's fees if such fees were requested from a hearing examiner. It would eliminate those claimants who desire to overturn an adverse administrative decision by an agency on judicial review. This idea is contrary to the legislature's purpose in enacting the statute. We conclude the correct interpretation is one which permits an unsuccessful claimant at an administrative hearing to petition for judicial review, and if successful to be eligible to receive costs and fees pursuant to sec. 814.245, Stats., without having requested an award of costs by a hearing examiner. As such, Sheely is eligible for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to sec. 814.245(3).