Opinion ID: 1894790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: (a) administrative review

Text: Smith contends that the Authority's procedure, which provides that the applicant or user may appeal the chief executive officer's denial of a certificate of approval to the members of the Authority but does not provide a competitor the right to appeal to the full board where the chief executive officer decides in favor of issuing the certificate, is a denial of equal protection and due process. Smith, however, has not provided us with any authority for the proposition that an administrative review mechanism must comport with a judicial review procedure. Instead, Smith asks us to extend to administrative proceedings the Supreme Court's holding in Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 92 S.Ct. 862, 31 L.Ed.2d 36 (1972), that where judicial review is afforded it cannot be granted to some litigants and capriciously or arbitrarily denied to others without violating the Equal Protection Clause. We decline to do so. We have previously recognized that Although administrative agencies are constitutionally required to adhere to the `fundamentals of fair play,' [citation omitted] the courts have been reluctant to impose rigid procedural requirements upon administrative proceedings. The basic difference in `origin and function' of our judicial and administrative systems `preclude[s] wholesale transplantation of the rules of procedure trial and review which have evolved from the history and experience of courts' to the administrative process, and administrative agencies `should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties'. In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 746 (Me.1973). In the instant case, contrary to the assertion of Smith, there is nothing in the Authority's regulations to suggest that review by the board entitles the applicant or user to a de novo hearing and thus an additional opportunity to place evidence in the record. The final decision of the Authority in granting or denying the appeal of an applicant or user after an adverse decision by the chief executive officer, is subject to the same standard of judicial review as is the competitor's appeal from the chief executive officer's issuance of a certificate of approval. Because Smith has not demonstrated that this procedure is fundamentally unfair, and because competitors are provided equal access to judicial review of the agency's determination, we reject Smith's argument. Cf. New York & Massachusetts Motor Services, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 401 Mass. 566, 579-81, 517 N.E.2d 1270, 1278-1279 (1988) (statute permitting employee to transfer to Superior Court, but denying same to employer does not violate fourteenth amendment).