Opinion ID: 2057458
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver for Failure to Raise Claim

Text: Dixon's petition for review listed the grounds for review under § 4-22-1-14(a) almost verbatim. Specifically, the petition alleged that the Complaint Board's determinations were made without observance of procedures as required by the Employees Handbook and were not supported by substantial evidence. The petition made no mention of a constitutional claim. To the contrary, the petition only omitted one of the grounds for review under subsection 14(a): that the agency action was [c]ontrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity. Ind. Code § 4-22-1-14(a)(2). In his response to the Department's motion to dismiss for untimely filing, Dixon did not mention the constitutional claim. After the Department filed in November 1985 a Trial Rule 12(b)(6) motion which stated that Dixon failed to present a statutory right to a hearing or a [due process] cognizable property interest, Dixon responded without elaboration that he was discharged for exercising a protected right. In February 1986, the trial court granted the Department's motions and dismissed Dixon's petition. Even Dixon's motion to correct errors, which the trial court granted on other grounds, made no mention of the constitutional claim. The failure to allege a constitutional issue in the petition for review waives that issue on appeal. Clarkson v. Dept. of Insurance (1981), Ind. App., 425 N.E.2d 203, 206. See Linville v. Shelby County Plan Comm'n (1972), 258 Ind. 467, 281 N.E.2d 884 (constitutional issue not reviewable on appeal where it was not before trial court under the pleadings). Not only did Dixon fail to raise the constitutional claim in his petition, but he failed to raise it before the trial court dismissed his petition. Apparently, the majority thinks a constitutional claim is an ace worth concealing. The case on which the majority relies, Wilson v. Board of Indiana Employment Security Div. (1979), 270 Ind. 302, 385 N.E.2d 438, held that a person need not exhaust his administrative remedies where he challenges the constitutionality of the agency's procedures. However, Wilson does not relieve Dixon of the obligation of raising his constitutional claim in his petition for review. I would find that the constitutional issue was waived. I dissent. PIVARNIK, J., concurs.