Court Opinion

ID: 9477536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:25:33.194479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:55.436075
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe the actions of the Secretary did not provide Kentucky with requisite notice, I dissent. On January 8, 1986, fifteen days after Kentucky requested review of the AU’s order, a representative of the Secretary in the Office of Administrative Appeals notified the State that its exceptions had been received. App. 98. At this time, it was the acknowledged “practice [of that office] to notify the parties immediately when the Secretary decide[d] not to assert jurisdiction in a case.” App. 100. No such notice was sent. Kentucky reasonably relied on the actions of the Sec*123retary in the context of the statute, regulatory scheme, and that administrative practice to conclude that the case had been accepted for review.
Even the Secretary behaved in accordance with that view. By letter of January 20, 1987, the Office of Administrative Appeals acknowledged the practice described above, “notif[ied the State] that the Secretary has not accepted this case for review,” and “apologize[d] for our oversight in not sending this letter promptly.” App. 99-100. Another communication from the Department’s Atlanta office on October 16, 1986, suggests that Kentucky’s exceptions were in fact under review after the automatic 20-day cutoff the Secretary now claims applicable (“We have been advised that the Secretary of Labor has declined to review the decision of the [ALJ]”). App. 1.
In these circumstances, I do not believe that the Secretary gave the “notice” required even under the reading of the statute and regulation given by the majority. Thus I need not engage in an extended discussion of the further issues of statutory and regulatory interpretation and of due process, although I do not agree that the majority’s resolution is correct.
Finally, I do not read the opinion of the Court to have ruled on any questions on the merits, including Kentucky’s challenge to the application of interest to the CETA debt sought by the Secretary pursuant to the provisions of the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3717 and 3701(c).