Opinion ID: 2621130
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Department Produced an Adequate Written Decision.

Text: Anderson also challenges the adequacy of the department's final written decision. Specifically, Anderson alleges that the department fail[ed] to consider each of the [relevant] factors in 15 AAC 23.163(g), and fail[ed] in its decisional document to provide an adequate explanation for its decision. We consider each allegation in turn.
Anderson's first argument insists that the department failed to consider relevant evidence. By this he means that the department both totally failed to consider evidence and discounted evidence favoring his position when it drew inferences he believes were unwarranted. The substantial evidence standard of review prohibits this court from entertaining Anderson's second avenue of challenge. [21] His first is without merit. Anderson cites three cases to support his position: Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. State, [22] Kuitsarak Corp. v. Swope, [23] and Ninilchik Traditional Council v. Noah. [24] However, these cases establish nothing more than the department's obligation to carefully consider the evidence before it and provide a thorough written decision addressing each important issue. In Anderson's case, at each level of department reviewinitial application review, informal hearing, and formal hearingthe department considered all the evidence presented and made thorough findings of fact. The department also noted the evidence that supported Anderson's claim in each document it issued. Viewing the record as a whole, [25] it is clear that the department considered each piece of evidence Anderson insists was ignored.
Anderson charges that the department's findings of fact were inadequate because they did not specifically respond to each piece of favorable evidence he produced. Alaska law offers no support for this proposition. The legislature's statutory mandate to the department with respect to dividend appeals decisions simply states: Within 12 months after the administrative appeal is filed, the department shall provide the individual with a final written decision. [26] The legislature could have provided for more stringent requirements in the written decision, as it has in other contexts, [27] but it did not. The department's regulatory requirements for its own written decisions demand no more specificity. The department's regulation regarding informal appeal decisions states: After considering the facts, information, and arguments presented at the informal conference, the appeals officer shall promptly render a written decision. The decision must identify the issues in controversy for purposes of further appeal. [28] And the formal decision must contain[ ] the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law. [29] Neither regulation requires that the hearing officer respond in writing to each piece of evidence. Finally, nothing in this court's case law imposes a duty on an agency of responding in writing to each piece of evidence presented by an appellant. This court has only stated that an agency's decisional documents must reflect the reasoning of the agency. [30] Alaska's statutes, applicable regulations, and case law do not require the department to respond in writing to each piece of evidence presented by Anderson. Because the department clearly expressed its reasons for denying Anderson's application in the informal and formal appeals documents, we hold that the department's written decisions were adequate.