Opinion ID: 2640775
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limited jurisdiction

Text: One factor that courts rely on to determine that an agency exercises only quasi-judicial authority is the limited jurisdiction of the administrative agency. [40] One of the policy justifications for the existence of administrative adjudication is that as a result of their limited jurisdiction, administrative agencies are able to develop expertise in a narrow area. [41] Some courts have decided that a grant of judicial power to an administrative agency is acceptable when the administrative body resolve[s] factual issues underlying a purely statutory right. [42] Administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide issues of constitutional law. [43] Delegation to an administrative agency is upheld as long as the administrative tribunal stays within the bounds of its authority. [44] The Appeals Commission's jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determination of all questions of law and fact arising under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act in matters that have been appealed to the Appeals Commission. [45] The scope of its jurisdiction is not that different from the Board's jurisdiction, [46] except that the Appeals Commission performs a quasi-judicial function that is akin to appellate review, while the Board performs a quasi-judicial function that resembles that of a trial court. We recognize that the Appeals Commission, like the Board, may be required to apply equitable or common law principles in a specific case, [47] but both of these quasi-judicial agencies can only adjudicate in the context of a workers' compensation case. Neither the Appeals Commission nor the Board has jurisdiction to hear any action outside of a workers' compensation claim. [48] Although AKPIRG's main argument is that the Appeals Commission has usurped a judicial function and therefore cannot really be a quasi-judicial agency, it does not appear that AKPIRG argues that all administrative appellate review is unconstitutional. AKPIRG lists the Board's authority to hear appeals from decisions of the reemployment benefits administrator (RBA) as one of the Board's functions. In appeals from a decision of the RBA, the Board is limited by statute to reviewing the action for abuse of discretion. [49] AKPIRG does not attack the Board's appellate authority as an excessive delegation and does not explain why a delegation of appellate review to the Appeals Commission would be suspect when a delegation of a similar, though narrower, function to the Board is permissible. The superior court considered whether appellate review is a uniquely judicial function and decided that it was not. In Alaska, multi-level agency review is used in unemployment claims [50] as well as contract claims against the state. [51] Decisions of fair hearing officers in public assistance cases must be reviewed by the division director before they can be appealed to the court. [52] The procedures used by the Appeals Commission may be more formal and more closely resemble the courts' procedures, but that does not render them unconstitutional. AKPIRG also urges us to declare the Appeals Commission a court because its function, to review Board decisions, was formerly performed by the superior court. The fact that an administrative body performs a function previously performed by a court does not automatically make it a court. Several years after Congress amended the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to provide for administrative appellate review by the Benefits Review Board and judicial review by the United States Courts of Appeal, two members of the Benefits Review Board, who had been removed from their positions, claimed that the Benefits Review Board was in fact an Article III court, in part because its review function replaced a function that had previously been performed by the District Court. [53] In deciding that the Benefits Review Board was not an Article III court, the D.C. Circuit observed, Article III requires only that the ultimate `judicial power' be reserved in the Article III courts; it does not require that all adjudicative bodies exercising the review `standards' that Article III courts exercise be constituted as Article III courts. [54] Similarly, the fact that the Appeals Commission reviews Board decisions and uses standards of review and procedures that closely parallel those of the court does not make the Appeals Commission a court. The Appeals Commission's limited jurisdiction supports the conclusion that it is a quasi-judicial agency rather than a court.