Court Opinion

ID: 9728231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:02:40.223367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.002101
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed September 80, 1969.
Per Curiam,
(on motion for rehearing). The brief of the attorney general points out the mandate and the last paragraph of the opinion are inconsistent with the rest of the opinion. Such inconsistency will be corrected. We point out, however, it is not the law that the department can set aside an examiner’s findings “for any reason or for no reason.” The commission’s fact-finding process and each step therein are subject to the dictates of due process and review by this court in passing upon the findings made by the department.
Since the present state of the record does not support the findings as made by the commission and this matter had to go back to the department for further proceedings, we meant in our original opinion that the findings and the award of the examiner should be a starting point for the future proceedings; consequently, we said they should *228bbe reinstated. We think the proper procedure is to reinstate those findings and award and for the commission to again consider the testimony already taken and such additional testimony as the parties wish to present on all issues in dispute and to make new and complete findings thereon.
By the Court. — The last paragraph of the opinion and the mandate are withdrawn and the judgment is reversed with directions to remand the cause to the department for further proceedings consistent with the opinion as modified upon the rehearing.