Opinion ID: 1990388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Administrative Procedures Act

Text: The Superior Court's review of the decision of an administrative agency is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act. [4] Rossi v. Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, 895 A.2d 106, 109 (R.I.2006). When this Court reviews the judgment of the Superior Court in administrative proceedings, our review is limited to questions of law. Id. at 110 (citing § 42-35-16 and Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 805 (R.I.2000)). Questions of law determined by the administrative agency are not binding upon us and may be freely reviewed to determine the relevant law and its applicability to the facts presented in the record. State Department of Environmental Management v. State Labor Relations Board, 799 A.2d 274, 277 (R.I.2002) (citing Carmody v. Rhode Island Conflict of Interest Commission, 509 A.2d 453, 458 (R.I.1986)). Although this Court affords the factual findings of an administrative agency great deference, questions of law  including statutory interpretation  are reviewed de novo. In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 732 A.2d 55, 60 (R.I.1999) (citing City of East Providence v. Public Utilities Commission, 566 A.2d 1305, 1307 (R.I. 1989)). It is undisputed that Iselin filed her application for disability benefits outside the statutorily prescribed limitations period set forth in § 36-10-14(b). [5] The overarching issue on appeal is whether that time bar may be equitably tolled  and, if so, whether the trial justice erred in not doing so. [6] Because this analysis involves an issue of statutory interpretation, we shall examine § 36-10-14(b) before we address plaintiff's arguments.