Court Opinion

ID: 9629024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:35:57.828252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:14.496098
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice,
dissenting:
I.C. § 72-1368 sets forth the procedure to be followed when applying for unemployment compensation. Under this statute, a decision of an appeals examiner must be appealed to the Industrial Commission. I.C. § 72-1368(g). However, the Industrial Commission has statutorily been granted the right to delegate the appeals function to a hearing officer, referee or examiner— subject to subsequent approval by the commission. Specifically, I.C. § 72-506 states:
“72-506. Acts of commission or reference — Hearing officers. — (1) Any investigation, inquiry or hearing which the commission has power to undertake or hold may be undertaken by or held by or before any member thereof or any hearing officer, referee or examiner appointed by the commission for that purpose. “(2) Every finding, order, decision or award made by any member, hearing officer, referee, or examiner pursuant to such investigation, inquiry or hearing, when approved and confirmed by the commission, and ordered filed in its office, shall be deemed to be the finding, order, decision or award of the commission.”
Once a referee has been appointed by the commission to examine the record and hear additional evidence, the referee is acting for the commission — subject to the commission’s approval. To suggest now, without the issue being raised or briefed by the parties, that the commission must independently review the whole record before approving the referee’s decision is to ignore the plain meaning of I.C. § 72-506. The majority’s holding would render the statute’s delegation provisions pointless.
Finally, the rights of the respondent employer, the prevailing party below, must be considered. The due process issue which forms the basis for the majority opinion was not raised or briefed by the parties. *901Yet the majority now reverses the commission on this very issue. Pine Crest is thus denied notice of and an opportunity to brief and be heard on that issue. It is ironic that in reaching its conclusion the majority cites and relies on the following quote from Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112, 666 P.2d 639 (1983):
“The right to procedural due process guaranteed under both the Idaho and United States Constitutions requires that a person involved in the judicial process be given meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 115, 666 P.2d at 642.
In holding as the majority does, Pine Crest is truly the party denied procedural due process. Accordingly, I cannot join in the majority’s opinion. The commission was acting pursuant to statute, and the merits of this case should be addressed.