Appeal of Annelie Mullen, 169 N.H. 392

Background

Mullen received unemployment benefits in 2010; the Department determined she knowingly failed to report work/earnings and sought repayment as an overpayment for fraud.
Mullen appealed to the tribunal and prevailed in January 2012 (found overpaid but without fault); the commissioner then reopened the case sua sponte in March 2012, ordering a de novo rehearing.
The tribunal held further de novo hearings; ultimately the tribunal (after a third hearing) and later administrative reviews resulted in orders requiring repayment, with penalty adjustments following commissioner-ordered reopenings.
Mullen challenged the commissioner’s 2012 unilateral reopening as violating procedural and substantive due process and exceeding statutory authority under RSA chapter 282-A.
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered (1) whether the reopening violated due process given the commissioner’s roles and (2) whether the commissioner exceeded authority under RSA 282-A:60.
The court affirmed, holding the commissioner’s limited authority to reopen for fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence did not violate due process or exceed statutory authority, and no actual bias was shown.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commissioner’s sua sponte reopening after tribunal victory violated procedural due process	Mullen: reopening by commissioner (who administers investigations) creates appearance of bias and fundamental unfairness; commissioner functions as adverse/interested party	State: commissioner is statutorily the second-level reviewer with limited reopening authority; tribunal conducts de novo hearings and remains independent	Held: No due process violation; plaintiff must show actual bias when functions are commingled and none was shown; procedures overall were fundamentally fair
Whether commissioner exceeded statutory authority under RSA 282-A:60 by reopening fraud cases when claimant prevailed	Mullen: allowing reopening lets commissioner repeatedly override tribunal and thwart appeals; commissioner should have to appeal to board instead	State: RSA 282-A:60 expressly permits reopening on fraud, mistake, or newly discovered evidence; reopening returns matter to tribunal for de novo review	Held: Commissioner acted within statutory authority; reopening limited by statute and does not produce absurd result
Whether commissioner’s guidance in reopening letter improperly controlled tribunal and tainted de novo hearing	Mullen: written instructions and commentary amounted to controlling the hearing, creating unfairness	State: letter provided limited guidance; tribunal expressly stated it was conducting a de novo hearing and retained independence	Held: Tribunal conducted de novo hearing; commissioner’s comments did not make proceedings fundamentally unfair
Whether federal DOL handbook guidance or out-of-state practices invalidate commissioner’s actions	Mullen: reopening contradicted DOL handbook principles and other states’ schemes	State: handbook/other states’ statutes not controlling; due process and state statute govern	Held: Handbook and other states’ practices do not change outcome; state procedures satisfied due process and statutory text controlled

Key Cases Cited

Appeal of Mullen, 165 N.H. 344 (N.H. 2013) (prior appeal addressing jurisdiction and exhaustion issues)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (combination of investigative and adjudicative functions does not alone violate due process)
Appeal of Trotzer, 143 N.H. 64 (N.H. 1998) (when agency commingles functions, claimant must show actual bias)
Appeal of Office of Consumer Advocate, 134 N.H. 651 (N.H. 1991) (presumption that administrative adjudicators will be fair absent evidence of bias)
Petition of Kilton, 156 N.H. 632 (N.H. 2007) (administrative appeal procedures designed to minimize inaccuracies and assure fairness)
Appeal of Niadni, Inc., 166 N.H. 256 (N.H. 2014) (standard for judicial review of department decisions)