Court Opinion

ID: 9609756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:31:07.370651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:52.243740
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting.
I would reverse. This Court should not put its stamp of approval on the course of the proceedings in this case. It insults my sense of due process to allow an agency to investigate a complaint, prosecute the complaint through its counsel before a hearing examiner, and then make a final decision on the basis of its findings of fact which were contrary to the hearing examiner’s findings. It is not only an appearance of impropriety which should not be tolerated, but it is also a violation of the constitutional right to due process.
I certainly understand the need for administrative law and the relaxation of rules of procedure as a matter of expediency, but the procedures which were followed in this case *483crossed the line to the point that a fundamental right was eradicated.
The hearing examiner’s decision, as in worker’s compensation contested cases, should have been the one subject to appeal, not that of an agency which was a party to the action. If such were the case in this instance, the hearing examiner’s decision would have been affirmed in accordance with our appellate standards of review.