Opinion ID: 2551330
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The board's denial of AT & T's request for a continuance

Text: Soon after Orchitt presented his new expert reports in the month before the hearing, AT & T requested a continuance of its expert medical testimony. AT & T's continuance requests were all related to obtaining a follow-up EME to develop rebuttal evidence in response to Orchitt's experts, Dr. May and, later, Dr. Keene. AT & T made its requests in reliance on 8 AAC 45.074. The regulatory standard for granting a continuance is good cause. [40] AT & T argued to the board that there was good cause for a continuance under 8 AAC 45.074(b)(1)(I) and 8 AAC 45.074(b)(1)(L), which state that good cause for a continuance exists when (I) the board determines that despite a party's due diligence in completing discovery before requesting a hearing and despite a party's good faith belief that the party was fully prepared for the hearing, evidence was obtained by the opposing party after the request for hearing was filed which is or will be offered at the hearing, and due process required the party requesting the hearing be given an opportunity to obtain rebuttal evidence; . . . (L) the board determines that despite a party's due diligence, irreparable harm may result from a failure to grant the requested continuance or cancel the hearing. The scope of review for an agency's application of its own regulations to the facts is limited to whether the agency's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. [41] The board did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant AT & T's request for a continuance. The board appears to have balanced its desire to go forward with the hearing in the case, which had been pending for quite some time, [42] with AT & T's due process rights when it: (1) offered to leave the record open so that AT & T could rebut Dr. Keene's report or cross-examine Dr. Keene at deposition; [43] (2) afforded AT & T the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. May at the hearing  albeit on AT & T's own time; and (3) offered to leave the record open at the close of the hearing. [44] AT & T waived cross-examination of Drs. Keene and May and did not object to the board's closing the record at the end of the hearing. Because the board offered AT & T some opportunity to present evidence after the hearing in lieu of granting a continuance, we cannot say that the board abused its discretion here.