Court Opinion

ID: 9605223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:31:54.060675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:26.544941
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
joined by RABI-NOWITZ, Justice, concurring.
In my opinion the appeal to the superior court was timely under 20 AAC 05.850. That regulation is expressly applicable to “a decision” of the Commission. The denial of a hearing under 20 AAC 05.8051 is a decision of the Commission. It therefore is subject to reconsideration under § 850.
In fact, the denial of a hearing under § 805 is a determination that the written request for a hearing has demonstrated no right to relief. As such, the denial is akin to a judgment on the pleadings in a civil action and is a final decision on the merits of the controversy. It makes no sense to conclude that such a decision should not be subject to reconsideration by the Commission while all other final decisions by the Commission are. There is certainly no language in the regulations which suggests that this unusual conclusion is warranted.
For these reasons I conclude that the appeal to the superior court was timely and that the court erred in dismissing it.

. 20 AAC 05.805 provides in part:
REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, (a) An applicant or other party may request an oral or written administrative hearing by filing a request for a hearing with the commission. The request for a hearing must contain a statement of why the commission’s determination should be changed, and indicate which findings of fact, interpretation of regulation, or interpretation of statute the party believes to be in error. An administrative hearing will be granted upon the determination that the written request for a hearing demonstrates a genuine issue in contention.