Preview:

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Jesus R. Lopez, Petitioner, v. Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services, and Qwest Corporation, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20060513-CA F I L E D (October 5, 2006) 2006 UT App 411

----Original Proceeding in this Court Attorneys: Jesus R. Lopez, Magna, Petitioner Pro Se Geoffrey T. Landward, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services ----Before Judges Billings, McHugh, and Orme. PER CURIAM: Jesus R. Lopez petitions for judicial review of the final order of the Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services (the Board). This case is before the court on its sua sponte motion for summary disposition based upon lack of jurisdiction, and the Board's motion for summary disposition based upon lack of a substantial question for review. A petition for review of an agency's final order must be filed "within 30 days after the date of the written decision or order." Utah R. App. P. 14(a). The Board issued its final order denying Lopez's motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2006. Lopez filed his petition for review on June 5, 2006. Accordingly, Lopez timely filed his petition for review, and this court has jurisdiction to review Lopez's petition. 1
1

Lopez's docketing statement listed the date of the final (continued...)

In its motion for summary disposition, the Board argues that the issues Lopez sets forth for review in his docketing statement "are so insubstantial as not to merit further proceedings and consideration" by this court. Utah R. App. P. 10(a). We agree. Lopez first asserts that the Board erred by not allowing him to be represented by a union representative during the course of the administrative proceedings. However, Lopez did not make this request for representation until approximately one month after his original hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After Lopez filed his appeal of the ALJ's decision, the Board was forced to remand the case to the ALJ because the tape of the original proceedings could not be transcribed. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for the limited purpose of "reconstructing the original hearing." The remand order expressly stated that "[b]oth parties are advised that no new witnesses or evidence will be accepted by the administrative law judge at the rescheduled hearing." At the hearing, the ALJ informed Lopez's union representative that he could not participate because he did not attend the original hearing and they were there merely to reconstruct the original record. If the ALJ allowed Lopez's union representative to participate, it risked substantially altering the substance of the record that it was merely attempting to recreate. Neither Lopez nor his union representative objected. After the record was reconstructed in the second hearing, the Board, without scheduling any additional hearing, issued its decision affirming the ALJ's order denying Lopez benefits. Based upon this procedural posture, the Board did not deprive Lopez of the right to have representation during the course of the proceedings. Further, even if we were to conclude that the Board had unreasonably restricted Lopez's right to non-legal union representation in some manner, Lopez has not demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice as a result of that restriction. See Utah Code Ann.

Download lopez100506.pdf

Utah Law