Alaska Public Int. Research Group v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. S-12341.,S-12341. |
| Citation | 167 P.3d 27 |
| Parties | ALASKA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska and Frank H. Murkowski, Governor, Appellees. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Chancy Croft, Chancy Croft Law Office, Anchorage, for Appellant.
Paul R. Lyle, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Fairbanks, Laura C. Bottger, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and David W. Márquez, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.
This appeal raises a constitutional challenge to the creation of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission in 2005. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) contends that the establishment of the Appeals Commission violates the separation of powers doctrine implicit in the Alaska Constitution by creating a court in the executive branch and improperly removing jurisdiction from the superior court. The State responds that the creation of the Appeals Commission was simply an exercise of the legislature's article III power to create a quasi-judicial agency. The superior court granted summary judgment to the State, deciding that the Appeals Commission is a quasi-judicial agency. We conclude that establishment of the Appeals Commission does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, but we narrowly construe the statute's provision that decisions of the Appeals Commission have "the force of legal precedent," determining that the decisions are binding only on the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board and the Appeals Commission itself. We also conclude that we have the inherent authority to order a trial de novo when due process requires one.
The Twenty-Fourth Legislature enacted a number of changes to the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act in chapter 10, FSSLA 2005. The governor sponsored the legislation in response to a perception that workers' compensation insurance rates were too high and were making it difficult for some businesses in the state to continue.1 Among the changes was the establishment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission.2 The Appeals Commission is comprised of five members.3 One member, the chair, must be an attorney experienced in Alaska workers' compensation law.4 The other members of the Appeals Commission are equally divided between representatives of employers and employees.5 Members of the Appeals Commission other than the chair must have served for at least eighteen months on the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board.6 The members of the Appeals Commission are appointed by the governor and confirmed by a majority of the legislature.7 Those who want to serve on the Appeals Commission submit their applications to the chief administrative law judge, who chooses the individuals whose names are submitted to the governor for selection.8 Members of the Appeals Commission are subject to conflict of interest provisions9 and may only be removed by the governor for good cause.10
Under the new statute, the Appeals Commission hears appeals of decisions of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board;11 it is the "exclusive and final authority for the . . . determination of all questions of law and fact"12 arising under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act,13 except for an appeal to this court.14 Three-member panels of the five-member Appeals Commission hear and decide appeals.15 The statute also provides that unless reversed by this court, decisions of the Appeals Commission have the "force of legal precedent."16 The statute authorizes the Appeals Commission to adopt regulations implementing its duties, including the adoption of rules of procedure and evidence, in addition to its work reviewing decisions of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board.17 It is also able to award reasonable attorney's fees.18
AKPIRG filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief on September 30, 2005. In its complaint it alleged that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission was an "executive court." It further alleged that creation of the Appeals Commission violated article IV of the Alaska Constitution by: (1) improperly removing superior court jurisdiction and granting jurisdiction to the supreme court; (2) creating a court outside the unified judicial system; (3) not following constitutional provisions for the selection of judges; and (4) improperly granting power to the Appeals Commission to make rules governing the administration of the Appeals Commission. AKPIRG asked the superior court to declare the provisions of the statute creating the Appeals Commission "null and void," enjoin the implementation of those sections of the statute that created the Appeals Commission, and declare that appeals in workers' compensation cases could be filed and heard in the superior court.
About two weeks after AKPIRG filed its complaint, the State moved for summary judgment, asking the superior court to decide as a matter of law that: (1) the Appeals Commission was a properly created quasi-judicial agency under article III, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution, and (2) taking intermediate appellate jurisdiction in workers' compensation cases from the superior court was a valid exercise of legislative power under article IV, section 1 of the Alaska Constitution. On October 21, 2005, AKPIRG filed its own summary judgment motion, seeking an order that sections 8, 40, and 41 of chapter 10, FSSLA 2005 were unconstitutional.19
After hearing oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court granted the State's motion. It decided that the Appeals Commission was a quasi-judicial agency that the legislature properly created under article III, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution. In reaching its decision, the superior court considered the difference between judicial and quasi-judicial functions and the extent to which appellate review was a uniquely judicial function. It determined that there was no constitutional provision for intermediate appellate review by the superior court, so that the legislature could properly limit the superior court's appellate jurisdiction.
AKPIRG appeals.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.20 We will affirm a grant of summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.21 For questions of constitutional law, we apply our independent judgment.22 In interpreting the constitution, we adopt "a reasonable and practical interpretation in accordance with common sense based upon the plain meaning and purpose of the provision and the intent of the framers."23 Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of showing that they are unconstitutional is on the party challenging the statute.24
This case presents two interrelated issues: whether the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission is a properly created quasi-judicial agency and whether the Appeals Commission represents executive branch encroachment on the power of the judiciary, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The parties agree that there are no factual disputes. We conclude that the legislature acted within its constitutional authority in creating the Appeals Commission and that, with some limiting construction of the statute, the authority of the Appeals Commission does not encroach on the judicial branch.
We have recognized that the separation of powers and its complementary doctrine of checks and balances are part of the constitutional framework of this state.25 The separation of powers doctrine is derived from the distribution of power among the three branches of government.26 The Alaska Constitution vests legislative power in the legislature; executive power in the governor; and judicial power in the supreme court, the superior court, and additional courts as established by the legislature.27 The separation of powers doctrine limits the authority of each branch to interfere in the powers that have been delegated to the other branches.28 The purposes of the separation of powers doctrine are to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and to safeguard the independence of each branch of government.29
In determining whether creation of the Appeals Commission violates the separation of powers, we examine the nature of the power that the legislature granted to the Appeals Commission.30 We also examine which branch of government is assigned this power in the constitution and whether the constitution suggests that the power is to be shared by two branches.31 Finally, we must determine whether the limits of any express grant have been exceeded or present an encroachment on another branch.32
The parties here agree that the function of the Appeals Commission — hearing appeals — is adjudication, which is primarily a judicial function.33 Although the Alaska Constitution vests judicial power in the courts, it also explicitly envisions legislatively created quasi-judicial agencies within the executive branch.34
Article III, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution provides: "Regulatory, quasi-judicial, and temporary agencies may be established by law . . . ." But the constitution contains no definition of "quasi-judicial" agency. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in discussing whether to include quasi-judicial agencies in the new Alaskan government, looked at a dictionary definition of "quasi-judicial" as "designating an act or proceeding of or before an administrative tribunal or official of the general nature of a judicial act or proceeding but not within the judicial power as defined under the Constitution."35 The delegates debated the advantages that quasi-judicial bodies might offer, such as specialization and expertise, and the disadvantages, such as the potential for abuses of power.36 The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dialysis Solutions, LLC v. Miss. State Dep't of Health
...under the common law, until the Legislature “validly delegated quasi-judicial power” to the Commission. Alaska Pub. Interest Research Group v. State, 167 P.3d 27, 39 (Alaska 2007). By contrast, no certificate of need procedure existed at common law, as it is a statutory creation. ¶ 11. We a......
-
Pope v. Nebco of Cleveland, Inc.
...challenge to the statutes creating that state's Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. See Alaska Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. State , 167 P.3d 27, 34 (Alaska 2007). In doing so, the Alaska Supreme Court comprehensively and convincingly described the "quasi-judicial" nature of Alaska's......