interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act and holding that "[w]e decline to interpret section 9061 so as to strike ‘written’ from that section's ‘written notice’ requirement as if it were a mere technicality”
How later courts described this case
- interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act and holding that "[w]e decline to interpret section 9061 so as to strike ‘written’ from that section's ‘written notice’ requirement as if it were a mere technicality”
- noting that statutorily required notice must be given mandatory effect if the rights of interested parties would be prejudiced absent such notice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLIFFORD, Justice,
dissenting,
with whom LIPEZ, Justice, joins.
[¶8] The Maine Administrative Procedure Act provides that judicial review of an *893 administrative agency action must be taken within 30 days after receipt of notice of the decision of the agency. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11002(3) (1989). The Court’s decision, in this ease, however, allows Dr. Seider, who was continually represented during the Board’s hearing and thereafter with competent attorneys, to file an appeal twenty months after she received notice of the Board’s decision, and four months after her attorney actually communicated with the Board concerning notice of her appeal rights.
[¶ 9] The purpose of a requirement such as that in 5 M.R.S.A. § 9061 (1989) that an administrative decision must provide written notice of rights of appeal is to insure that parties are fully apprised of their appeal rights. See Owens v. Second Baptist Church of LaGrange, 163 Ill.App.3d 442 , 114 Ill.Dec. 557, 560 , 516 N.E.2d 712, 715 (1987). The law also insures that appeals are filed and dealt with promptly by the Administrative Court.
[¶ 10] In December of 1996, Dr. Seider’s attorney contacted the Board to inform it that Dr. Seider had not received written notice of her appeal rights. The attorney was acting with full knowledge of her right to an appeal, and in my view, that contact was the equivalent of a written notice. From that time on, no further purpose of the notice requirement was being served and Dr. Seider must be charged with full knowledge of her appeal rights.
[¶ 11] This Court, however, elevates the importance of the written notice to a level that results in Dr. Seider having an unlimited time in which to file her appeal. In these circumstances, Dr. Seider should not be allowed to invoke a provision in the law intended as a shield to protect people unaware of their rights of appeal, and use it as a sword to extend her appeal period over one and a half years. I would affirm the judgment of the Administrative Court.