Opinion ID: 1277007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness Under the Circumstances

Text: ¶ 86 In seeking review from the DHA decision, All Star petitioned the Dane County Circuit Court, naming the DOT as respondent; All Star also served the petition on the DOT and the Attorney General. All Star explains that course of action by noting the interaction of Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1) with Wis. Stat. § 227.01(1), Wis. Stat. § 227.46(2m), and Wis. Stat. § 227.48(2), saying that the agency referred to in § 227.53(1) is the DOT. The majority concludes that this is one reasonable interpretation of the statutory scheme, in part because § 227.01(1) can be interpreted reasonably to exclude a division, thereby eliminating the DHA as the appropriate party on which to serve notice. Majority op., ¶ 31. The majority concludes that All Star's failure to name and serve the DHA as the respondent might be understandable if All Star were following only the statutes. Id. However, in the spirit of our rule that we will liberally construe ambiguous procedural statutes in favor of the petitioner seeking review, Peterson, 226 Wis.2d at 633, 594 N.W.2d 765, I conclude that if All Star had only the statute for guidance, its actions were reasonable. ¶ 87 However, also important to consider is the effect of the notice appended to the final decision of the DHA. If the notice clearly specified the proper party or person to serve so as to eliminate the ambiguity in the statutory directive, then All Star's actions may not have been reasonable under the circumstances. However, the DHA did not name whom to serve. ¶ 88 The majority contends, however, that there can be no doubt that the Notice required All Star to serve DHA. Majority op., ¶ 50. I disagree. The relevant portion of the Notice said: Any person aggrieved by the attached decision which adversely affects the substantial interests of such person by action or inaction, affirmative or negative in form is entitled to judicial review by filing a petition therefore in accordance with the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52 and 227.53. Said petition must be filed within thirty (30) days after service of the agency decision sought to be reviewed. If a rehearing is requested as noted in paragraph (1) above, any party seeking judicial review shall serve and file a petition for review within thirty (30) days after service of the order disposing of the rehearing application or within thirty (30) days after final disposition by operation of law. Any petition for judicial review shall name the Division of Hearings and Appeals as the respondent. Persons desiring to file for judicial review are advised to closely examine all provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 227.52 and 227.53 to insure strict compliance with all its requirements. ¶ 89 The majority's conclusion that the nature of the Notice and its directive is direct and clear depends on the majority opinion's competent, but very complicated, analysis of the Notice. Majority op., ¶ 51. While an experienced attorney may come to the conclusion that the DHA should be served, a person unfamiliar with legal processes may not come to the same conclusion because the Notice is silent with regard to directions about whom to serve. Additionally, the conclusion of the majority fails to recognize the influence of the statutes, also referred to in the Notice, which suggest that the DOT is the agency to be served. ¶ 90 In addition, the Notice's provision stating that any party seeking judicial review shall serve and file a petition for review does not make it obvious to serve the DHA because of the Notice's subsequent instruction, to name the Division of Hearings and Appeals as the respondent. See majority op., ¶¶ 50-51. The combination of those phrases does not clearly state that the DHA is the agency to be served pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.53(1). I conclude that the Notice is far from direct and clear, and that it failed to clarify the statutory ambiguity or offer All Star a clear directive as to proper service. Therefore, under all of the circumstances of the case, including the Notice, I conclude that All Star acted reasonably when it served only the DOT and therefore, All Star did preserve its opportunity for substantive judicial review.