Court Opinion

ID: 9729690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:46:26.072761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.522552
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring:
I express a degree of doubt that the provision of I.C. 4-22-1-14 which authorizes judicial review of an administrative “order, decision or determination” if “[c]on-trary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity”, was intended to embrace a constitutional attack upon the statutory authority for the administrative agency to act at all, as opposed to an attack upon certain decisions which are infected by unconstitutional procedures or acts which occur during the exercise of otherwise valid authority or power. A challenge to the underlying authority of the agency itself is quite different in nature and scope from a challenge to the manner in which valid authority is exercised.
In the case before us the majority observes that “the declaratory judgment action can only resolve one aspect of the dispute between Dr. Thompson and the Board, his constitutional objections, leaving unresolved the misconduct charges against him.” (p. 51). If the sole issue involved unconstitutionality of I.C. 25-22.5-6-2 on *52its face, I would hold the declaratory judgment action to be an appropriate remedy without resort to further proceedings within the administrative review process. See State ex rel. City of South Bend v. St. Joseph Superior Court (1958) 238 Ind. 88, 148 N.E.2d 558; State ex rel. City of South Bend v. Marckle (1939) 215 Ind. 74, 18 N.E.2d 764.