Opinion

Adams v. Maine Bd.of Soc. Worker Licensure

Court
Superior Court of Maine
Filed
Feb 23, 2004
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
S. Kirk Studstrup
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.1%

The opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CIVIL ACTION

KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. AP-Q3-41

SKS~ KiN~ 2/23 hoe!

ELIZABETH L. ADAMS,

Petitioner

v. DECISION ON MOTION

TO DISMISS

MAINE BOARD OF SOCIAL mit

WORKER LICENSURE, bona a

LA ur

Respondent

MAn 17 2004

This matter comes before the court on the respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition on the ground that it was not filed in a timely manner. After reviewing the

facts concerning filing and the law on this subject, the motion will be granted.

Facts

The petitioner is a licensed social worker in the State of Maine, subject to the

disciplinary jurisdiction of the Maine Board of Social Worker Licensure (Board). On

May 19, 2003, following a hearing, the Board issued a written decision reprimanding the

petitioner and ordering payment of costs, among other things. The decision included a

statement of the petitioner’s appeal rights stating, “Any party that appeals this Decision

and Order must file a Petition for Review in the Maine Superior Court within 30 days of

receipt of this Order.” The decision was sent to the petitioner under cover of a letter

from the Board’s Complaint Coordinator dated May 20, 2003, which called attention to

the appeal rights set forth in the Decision and Order.

In response to the Decision, the petitioner wrote a letter to the chairperson of the

Board dated June 18, 2003, and sent a copy to the Kennebec County Superior Court.

That letter stated that it was a notification to the chairperson that Ms. Adams was

2

intending to file a petition for review by the Superior Court. However, the letter itself

was not a petition and did not contain a summary sheet, a copy of the Decision that was

being appealed and the filing fee. Therefore, the clerk of courts properly returned the

copy of the letter to Ms. Adams with a notice of incomplete filing. Adams responded

with the summary sheet and copy of Decision and filing fee, under cover of letter dated

June 25, 2003, but not received by the court until July 3, 2003. During this period, Ms.

Adams had been representing herself, but indicated in her last cover letter to the clerk

that she would have an attorney representing her after July 1, 2003.

By motion dated July 15, 2003, filed on July 17, 2003, the respondent Board

moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed.

Discussion

This appeal is being brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act,

which requires that a petition for review be filed within 30 days after receipt of the

notice by a party to the proceeding of which review is sought. 5 M.RS.A. § 11002(3).

The affidavit of Kaidena Neumann, the Board’s Complaint Clerk, indicates that the

Decision and Order was sent by certified mail to Adams and that the receipt for that

mail was signed for on May 27, 2003. Therefore, the appeal would have to have been

filed by June 28, 2003, in order to be timely. Moreover, in returning the incomplete

filing to Ms. Adams, the clerk’s notice emphasizes in bold letters, “If there was a

deadline for filing, that deadline has NOT changed.” The only conclusion that can be

reached is that the petitioner, though trying hard, simply missed the statutory filing

deadline.

In her objection to the motion to dismiss, through counsel, the petitioner points

to the fact that during the filing period she was representing herself and doing the best

she could as a layperson. While the court does not doubt that this is true, petitioner’s

self-representation does not gain her any special consideration. New England Whitewater

Center, Inc. v. Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988).

Unfortunately for the petitioner, the Law Court has spoken clearly on the effect of the

statutory time limit set forth in 5 M.RS.A. § 11005, as follow:

Judicial enlargement of a statutorily provided period of appeal is not

possible .. . the APA makes no provision for an extension of the time

limitations on judicial review. We now state expressly that the Act’s time

limitations are jurisdictional,

Brown v. State Department of Manpower Affairs, 426 A.2d 880, 887-888 (Me. 1981). The

motion to dismiss must be granted.

The entry will be:

Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is

DISMISSED and REMANDED.

Dated: February “3 2004 i {7

S. Kirk Studstrup —”

Justice, Superior Court

Action

Date Filed

7/3/03 Kennebec

ei

Docket No.___—_— AP03-41

County wa

80C Appeal

Elizabeth Adams

PO Box 158

Maine Board of Social Work Licensure

Ellsworth ME 04605

VS.

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Ferdinand Slater, Esq.

> School St.

Ellsworth ME 04605

Date of

Entry

Defendant’s Attorney

Robert Perkins AAG

State House Sta 6

Augusta Maine 04333

7/3/03

7/7/03

7/15/03

7/17/03

7/18/03

7/21/03

7/22/03

8/8/03

8/12/03

10/8/03

2/24/04

Copy of Petition for Review with a

ttached Decision, filed. s/E. Adams,

Pro se Petitioner.

Case File Notice issued to E. Adams.

Original* Petition, filed. s/E. Adams. (filed 7/11/03)

Petition with original signature. Petition filed on 7/3/03 did not contain

an original signature)

Response of Maine Board of Social Worker Licensure, filed

Motion to Dismiss, filed. s/Perkins, AAG.

Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed. s/Perkins, AAG.

Affidavit of Kaidena Neumann, filed. (attachments)

- s/Perkins, AAG

Motion to Dismiss, filed. s/Perkins, AAG

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT, Studstrup, J.

The Court hereby extends the time for the respondent to file the adminis=:::

trative record until 30 days after the Court

rules on motiont o dismiss.

Copies mailed to Pltf. and atty.

Entry of Appearance on behalf of Petitioner, filed.

s/F. Slater, Esq.

Petitioner's Answer and Objection to Motion to Dismi

ss, filed. s/Slater, Esq

Reply Memorandum of Respondent on Motion to Dismiss, filed. s/Perkins, AAG

Hearing held 10/7/03 on Motion to Dismiss with Studstrup, J., Presiding;

F. Slater, Esq. for Petitioner and R. Perkins, AAG for the Respondent.

After hearing, matte taken under advisement.

No Courtoom clerk and hearing not recorded.

DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS, Studstrup, J. (dated 2/23/04)

Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED and

REMANDED.

Copies mailed to attys of record.

Copies mailed to Deborah Firestone, Garbrecht Library and Goss.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.