 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bentley v. Aero Energy Inc.7/28/1995
AFFIRMING.
JOHNSTONE, JUDGE. The question presented by this petition for review is whether the failure of the administrative law Judge (ALJ) to render a decision within the 90-day time frame prescribed in 803 KAR 25:011 § 10(6)(a) renders that decision a nullity, entitling the claimant to a new hearing and decision within the required time limit. The Workers' Compensation Board perceived no due process deprivation in the failure to adhere to the time requirements of the regulation and concluded that a new hearing was not warranted. We agree and affirm.
Claimant Ernest Bentley sought benefits for injuries he allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with appellee, Aero Energy, Inc. After a hearing, the administrative law Judge concluded that Bentley was 25 percent occupationally disabled due to a work-related back injury, but assessed no disability for his psychiatric condition and did not consider a diagnosis of nonwork-related rheumatoid arthritis in deciding the merits of the claim. The award was rendered on December 22, 1993, well in excess of 90 days from the May 28, 1993 hearing. Bentley's petition for reconsideration was denied and the board affirmed the decision of the ALJ. In this appeal, Bentley predicates error solely on the failure to decide his case within 90 days.
The pertinent portion of § 10(6)(a) provides that:
The administrative law Judge may announce his decision at the Conclusion of the hearing and subsequently file his written opinion, serving it on the parties when filed, or the administrative law Judge may defer his decision until he files the written opinion. In either case, a decision shall be rendered no later than ninety (90) days following the hearing, and the time for filing a petition for reconsideration shall not begin to run until the date of filing of the written opinion. (Emphasis added).
Claimant Bentley asserts that the failure to adhere to the dictates of this regulation resulted in an inadequate award. It is his position that the passage of time denied the ALJ benefit of having personally observed the claimant at the formal hearing and diminished the ALJ's ability to Judge his credibility based upon demeanor, as well as the spoken word. We disagree.
The components of procedural due process in the context of administrative proceedings are well settled and, in this Commonwealth, are outlined by the following language in Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Jacobs, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 189, 192 (1954):
In order that the requirements of due process of law be satisfied, the litigant must be afforded procedural due process as well as substantive due process. This includes a hearing, the taking and weighing of evidence, if such is offered, a finding of fact based upon consideration of the evidence, the making of an order supported by substantial evidence, and, where the party's constitutional rights are involved, a judicial review of the administrative action. (Citations omitted).
As to what constitutes a "hearing," we refer to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 L. Ed. 1288 (1936), which provides the following analysis of the duties imposed upon the decision-maker:
For the weight ascribed by the law to the findings--their conclusiveness when made within the sphere of the authority conferred--rests upon the assumption that the officer who makes the findings has addressed himself to the evidence, and upon that evidence has conscientiously reached the Conclusions which he deems it to justify. That duty cannot be performed by one who has not considered evidence or argument. It is not
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|