324 P.3d 820
Wyo.2014Background
- Dubbelde was arrested for DUI on April 2, 2011, and pled guilty on April 4, 2011 after BAC exceeded 0.08%.
- WYDOT did not notify Dubbelde of suspension/disqualification until August 2012, sixteen months after conviction.
- Dubbelde requested a contested case hearing for both suspension and disqualification; WYDOT forwarded the request to OAH in August 2012 and a hearing was held September 27, 2012.
- At the hearing, Dubbelde appeared without counsel and argued he should have been notified at conviction for livelihood reasons; OAH upheld both suspension and disqualification for lack of good cause to modify.
- Subsequent district court review relied on the OAH record; WYDOT filed a brief late in district court, and Dubbelde moved to strike it, but the district court did not rule on the motion.
- This Court reviews the administrative action de novo as if from the agency, applying statutory standards that require not arbitrary or capricious conduct and proper application of the law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WYDOT’s late brief in this Court should be counted. | Dubbelde: WYDOT’s untimely district court brief should not be considered here. | WyDOT: Brief admission in this Court is timely or harmless; district court sanction is improper. | WYDOT’s brief may be considered; no sanction imposed. |
| Whether the OAH orders denying rescission were proper under § 31-7-105(e) and due process. | Dubbelde: Delay in notice violated promptness and due process, warranting rescission. | Dubbelde did not show good cause to rescind and delay did not violate due process. | OAH orders upheld; delay did not require rescission; no due process violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstell v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Revenue & Taxation, 769 P.2d 389 (Wyo. 1989) (agency proceedings instituted when hearing request forwarded to OAH; promptly instituted requirement satisfied)
- Carabajal v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 119 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2005) (hearing examiner must invoke applicable rules of law supporting claimant’s theory)
- Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 188 P.3d 554 (Wyo. 2008) (standard of review for administrative agency actions)
- JA v. State (In re DSB), 176 P.3d 633 (Wyo. 2008) (procedural due process and notice considerations in agency actions)
- Hwang v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 247 P.3d 861 (Wyo. 2011) (substantial evidence and scope of review in DMV cases)
- Tiernan v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 262 P.3d 561 (Wyo. 2011) (substantial evidence review framework for transportation department decisions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 154 P.3d 331 (Wyo. 2007) (administrative agency deference and statutory interpretation framework)