Opinion ID: 1668722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Department's October 5, 1992 Decision Was a Final Decision.

Text: Sudbeck argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing her appeal because the Department did not rule upon her objections to the proposed findings and conclusions or her proposed findings and conclusions. According to Sudbeck, until the Department issues rulings on the objections and proposed findings and conclusions, the Department has not rendered a final decision and the thirty-day appeal period has not begun. SDCL 1-26-25 provides: A final decision or order adverse to a party in a contested case shall be in writing or stated in the record. It may affirm, modify, or nullify action previously taken or may direct the taking of new action within the scope of the notice of hearing. It shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law, separately stated. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. If, in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact, the decision shall include a ruling upon each proposed finding. Parties shall be notified either personally or by mail of any decision or order. Upon request a copy of the decision or order shall be delivered or mailed forthwith to each party and to his attorney of record. (Emphasis added.) While the Department stated in its Decision that Sudbeck shall have ten (10) days from the date of receipt of Employer/Insurer's proposed Findings and Conclusions to submit objections thereto or to submit its own proposed Findings and Conclusions, this is not an agency rule. According to the Affidavit of James Marsh (Marsh), the Deputy Director of the South Dakota Department of Labor who rendered the Decision: There has been no administrative rule adopted by the South Dakota Department of Labor which requires submission of proposed findings of fact by each of the parties; rather one of the parties, generally the successful party, is directed by the Department of Labor to submit findings of fact and conclusion[s] of law and an order consistent with the Department's decision. Parties then may, within ten days, file objections to the submitted findings of fact and conclusions of law or may submit additional proposed findings but are not required to do so. In support of their position, Employer/Insurer cite Meador-Brady Mgt. Corp. v. Texas Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 833 S.W.2d 683 (Tex.Ct.App.1992), rev'd on other grounds, 866 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.1993) and Outdoor Circle v. Harold K.L. Castle Trust Estate, 4 Haw.App. 633, 675 P.2d 784 (Ct.App.1983), cert. denied, 67 Haw. 1, 677 P.2d 965 (1984). In Meador-Brady, appellants asserted that the Commission's final order was invalid because it did not expressly rule on the proposed findings of fact that appellants submitted. The Texas Court of Appeals noted that neither the Code nor the agency's rules provided for the filing of proposed findings and held that the Commission was not required to expressly rule on each of the proposed findings. Meador-Brady, 833 S.W.2d at 688. As in this case, the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) provided that [i]f, in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact, the decision shall include a ruling on each proposed finding. Meador-Brady, 833 S.W.2d at 688 (quoting APTRA § 16(b) (Supp.1992) (emphasis added)). In Outdoor Circle, appellants contended that the Land Use Commission violated Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-12 by failing to specify in its decision the disposition of each of appellants proposed findings. HRS § 91-12 provided that if any party has filed proposed findings of fact, the agency shall incorporate in its decision a ruling upon each proposed finding so presented. Outdoor Circle, 675 P.2d at 792 (quoting HRS § 91-12). In holding that the Land Use Commission (LUC) did not err, the Hawaii Court of Appeals stated that [i]t is not indispensable that there be a separate ruling on each proposed finding of fact. However, the agency must make its findings reasonably clear. In its March 7, 1978 order and decision, LUC made and incorporated reasonably clear findings. By choosing those, it impliedly rejected all others.  Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). We find the language of these two cases persuasive. Absent an agency rule, SDCL 1-26-25 does not require Department to rule on Sudbeck's proposed findings and conclusions. According to Marsh's Affidavit, no agency rule exists. Additionally, Department, by signing the findings and conclusions prepared and submitted by Employer/Insurer, impliedly rejected Sudbeck's. The Department has made its findings and conclusions reasonably clear. Outdoor Circle, 675 P.2d at 792. Therefore, the Department's October 5, 1992 Decision was a final decision.