 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Esquivel v. Labor Commission of Utah5/23/2000
of law, . . . appellate review gives no deference to the trial judge's or agency's determination, because the appellate court has `the power and duty to say what the law is and to ensure that it is uniform throughout the jurisdiction.'" Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997) (internal citation omitted).
An exception to this general rule exists if the legislature has either explicitly or implicitly granted discretion to the agency. However, absent a grant of discretion, an agency's interpretation or application of statutory terms should be reviewed under the correction-of-error standard. See Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Auditing Div., 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991). Additionally, if the "legislative intent concerning the specific question at issue can be derived through traditional methods of statutory construction, the agency's interpretation will be granted no deference and the statute will be interpreted in accord with its legislative intent." Id. at 589.
In the case before us, the court of appeals determined that the appeals board had been granted broad discretion by Utah Code Ann. § 34A-1-301 (1997), which provides: "The commission has the duty and the full power, jurisdiction, and authority to determine the facts and apply the law in this chapter." Esquivel, 1999 UT App at .
However, "an agency's statutory construction should only be given deference when there is a grant of discretion to the agency concerning the language in question, either expressly made in the statute or implied from the statutory language." Morton, 814 P.2d at 589; see also Elk Lodges No. 719 & No. 2021 v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 905 P.2d 1189, 1193 (Utah 1995) (noting that intermediate deference will be given if legislature has expressly or impliedly given discretion to apply or interpret that law but if no explicit grant of discretion by legislature, issues of statutory construction are reviewed for correctness); Hales Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Audit Div., 842 P.2d 887, 890 n.3 (Utah 1992) (same); Zissi v. State Tax Comm'n, 842 P.2d 848, 853 n.2 (Utah 1992) (same); Judge Norman H. Jackson, Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Revised, 12 Utah Bar J. 8, 46-47, 49 (1999).
We have never previously viewed Utah Code Ann. § 34A-1-301 as a broad grant of discretion to the Labor Commission. In fact, we have, upon numerous occasions since this statute became effective July 1, 1997, reviewed commission decisions concerning questions of law under the correctness standard. See, e.g., Vigos v. Mountainland Builders, Inc., 2000 UT 2, , 993 P.2d 207 (using correction-of-error standard to review Industrial Commission's interpretation of Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-99 on writ of certiorari to court of appeals); Christensen v. Spanish Fork City, 2000 UT 13, , 994 P.2d 1252 (companion case of Vigos that reviewed Labor Commission's interpretation of statute on certification from court of appeals); Olsen v. Samuel McIntyre Inv. Co., 956 P.2d 257, 259 (Utah 1998) (reviewing Industrial Commission's statutory construction for correctness on writ of certiorari to court of appeals); Brown & Root Indus. Serv. v. Industrial Comm'n, 947 P.2d 671, 675 (Utah 1997) (using correction-of-error standard to review Industrial Commission's statutory construction on writ of certiorari to court of appeals).
Neither the Labor Commission Appeals Board nor the court of appeals has established that section 34A-1-301 should now be interpreted differently. We are not convinced, and do not conclude, that section 34A-1-301 provides a general grant of discretion to the Labor Commission for statutory interpretation.
Accordingly, the specific issue presented in the cas
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|