Opinion ID: 1120870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the board err in its refusal to permit jerry saddler to testify?

Text: We hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Lajiness' attempt to call Saddler as a witness on his behalf. At the time the prehearing conferences were held, 8 AAC 45.065 provided in relevant part, PREHEARINGS. (a) In any action the board or its chairman will, in their discretion, direct the parties or their representatives to appear for a prehearing conference to consider ... (7) other matters that may aid in the disposition of the case... . (c) Following a prehearing the chairman will issue a summary of the actions taken at the prehearing... . Unless modified, the summary controls the subsequent course of the action. As noted above, Lajiness, at the prehearing conferences, indicated that only he and his uncle would be witnesses on his behalf at the hearing before the Board. No notice was given to Price that Jerry Saddler was to be called. Furthermore, the relevant summaries of the conference proceedings reflect that only Lajiness and his uncle would be called to testify at the Board hearing. Given the foregoing, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Lajiness' belated hearing day attempt to have a previously undisclosed witness testify in support of his wage rate adjustment claim. [2]