Leo P. Pratt, III v. Andrew Pallito, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, 167 A.3d 320

Petitioner, an inmate in the Vermont DOC, was charged with Major B-16 for refusing three direct orders to move from a single-bed infirmary cell to a ward.
Hearing officer found petitioner guilty; Disciplinary Committee and Superintendent upheld the decision.
Petitioner appealed to the Superintendent arguing the hearing was untimely; the Superintendent denied the appeal.
Petitioner filed a V.R.C.P. 75 petition for judicial review; amended petition raised only the issue of sufficiency of evidence.
DOC moved to dismiss, arguing petitioner failed to preserve the issue and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction unless all administrative remedies were exhausted; the trial court granted dismissal for lack of authority to hear an unpreserved issue.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, holding preservation, not exhaustion, governs review in this context and that the trial court lacked authority to address a nonpreserved argument

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petitioner's unpreserved argument may be reviewed	Petitioner exhausted remedies and preservation should not bar review	Preservation governs; unpreserved issues cannot be reviewed	Unpreserved issue cannot be reviewed; petition dismissed

Jordan v. Agency of Transp., 166 Vt. 509 (1997) (establishes exhaustion-preservation framework in VT)
In re Denio, 158 Vt. 230 (1992) (exhaustion used to interpret Act 250 jurisdiction; preservation concept discussed)
In re Entergy Nuclear Vt. Yankee, LLC, 2007 VT 103 (2007) (preservation of issues in administrative process; limits on review)
Passion v. Dep’t of Soc. and Rehab. Servs., 166 Vt. 596 (1997) (preservation requirement applied to administrative appeals)
Vermont Transco LLC v. Town of Vernon, 2014 VT 93A (2014) (distinction and interaction of exhaustion and preservation in VT)