Opinion ID: 1150326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether denial of appellant's motion to reopen the proceedings denied the consumer a fair hearing.

Text: It has been consistently held that rehearings before administrative bodies are addressed to their own discretion, and [O]nly a showing of the clearest abuse of discretion could sustain an exception to that rule. United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., 327 U.S. 515, 535, 66 S.Ct. 687, 697, 90 L.Ed. 821 (1946). Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974); Radio Corporation of America v. United States, 341 U.S. 412, 71 S.Ct. 806, 95 L.Ed. 1062 (1951). In our opinion, appellant has failed to sustain its burden of showing that the Commission clearly abused its discretion by demanding a separate audit of appellee, or by failing to require a more detailed explanation of appellee's item of unallocated incomes in its accounts. Ordinarily, a petition for rehearing is for the purpose of directing attention to matters said to have been overlooked or mistakenly conceived in the original decision, and thus invites a reconsideration upon the record upon which that decision rested. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 284 U.S. 248, 260, 52 S.Ct. 146, 149, 76 L.Ed. 273 (1932) (rehearing granted). The need for the additional information requested by appellant was not overlooked but considered unnecessary to the Commission's final decision. As stated by the court in Olivieri v. City of Bridgeport, 126 Conn. 265, 10 A.2d 770, 772 (1940): In the absence of other controlling circumstances, the ultimate question for the determination ... is whether it appears likely that an injustice has been done and upon a rehearing a different result would probably be reached... We are not persuaded that injustice has been done nor that the result reached would have been significantly different had the additional documents been before the Commission.