Opinion ID: 1614471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Irregularities in Entry of Judgment.

Text: Petitioner asserts that the action of the district court (a) in denying his claim without a hearing and (b) in ruling on the issues prior to the availability of the record made before the agency were procedural irregularities of such magnitude as to require reversal. Respondent answers the complaint that no hearing was held by urging that due process does not require a hearing incident to judicial review of administrative agency action. In support of this contention, respondent relies on our statement in Cedar Rapids Human Rights Commission v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 222 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1974) that [i]t has never been a rule of constitutional law that all administrative acts be subject to judicial review in order to have compliance with due process. We need not determine in the present case the extent to which constitutional standards of due process mandate a hearing on petitions for review of administrative agency action under Iowa Code section 17A.19 (1981). Petitioner's arguments on appeal are based upon rights conferred by the applicable statutory law as well as constitutional guarantees. Section 17A.19 does not expressly mandate that a hearing be held on a petition for judicial review and clearly an evidentiary hearing is inappropriate in most cases. Yet, in describing the means by which an evidentiary hearing may in certain cases be secured, section 17A.19(7) provides: Before the date set for hearing a petition for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, application may be made to the court for leave to present evidence in addition to that found in the record of the case. The quoted language at least suggests that some type of hearing will be accorded the parties in reviewing agency action in contested cases. Rule 333(b), Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in proceedings for judicial review of agency action in a contested case: Upon request of any party the reviewing court shall, or upon its own motion may, establish a schedule for the conduct of the proceeding. In reconciling the provisions of this rule with the language in section 17A.19(7) which refers to the date set for hearing, we conclude that in the review of contested cases a hearing must be held for submission of the issues for decision unless an alternative means of submission on written arguments is established by the court under rule 333(b). The district court's failure to provide for either of these modes of submission in the present case requires reversal of its judgment. We also conclude that reversal is required by the fact that final judgment was entered by the district court before the record before the administrative agency was available for its consideration. One of the grounds urged in the petition for judicial review is that the agency action in a contested case proceeding is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when viewed as a whole. No reason has been made to appear in respondent's argument or otherwise how the district court could have determined this issue without having the record made by the agency available to it. For each of the reasons stated, the judgment from which appeal has been taken is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Iowa Code section 17A.19 and our decision in this case. REVERSED AND REMANDED.