Court Opinion

ID: 9738148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:30.579061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.773470
License: Public Domain

Cynar, P.J.
(dissenting in part and concurring in part). In this case, the two member-panel of the appeal board and its composition as provided by the Legislature does not violate defendant’s due process right to a fair and impartial decision maker. The record does not support actual or probable bias in violation of defendant’s due process right. On the record before us, to merely say that the probability of actual bias on the part of the decision maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable is not enough. I would agree with the reasoning of the majority if the two-member panel had not reached a decision, thereby necessitating assigning an employer representative as provided under the statute with a result that the added panelist would be strongly identified and aligned with the interest of the employer. Reflection is difficult to avoid as to whether the people would be best served by selection of impartial panelists. However, the panel in this case was not divided. I concur with the majority on the disposition of the other issues.