exhaustion of remedies doctrine in Alaska

2024The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine limits the availability of judicial relief “until the available administrative remedies have been exhausted.”52 “[T]he basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its 47 266 P.3d 1043 (Alaska 2011). 48 Id. at 1044-45 . 49 Cf. id. at 1044 . 50 Cf. id. at 1043-44 . 51 Cf. id. at 1044 . 52 Winterrowd v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 288 P.3d 446, 450 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 176 (Alaska 1982)

2022Although Dr. Ness argues that exhaustion would have been futile, we cannot agree on this record.5 3 See Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 181 (Alaska 1982) (“One of the primary purposes of the exhaustion of remedies rule is to promote judicial economy by affording an institution the opportunity to correct its own errors, so as to render judicial action unnecessary.”). 4 AS 44.62.560(a). 5 According to Dr. Ness, the Board said its decision would “remain the same” even after a full hearing.

2024The RCA’s regulations do not allow interventions in 69 See State v. Beard, 960 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Eufemio v. Kodiak Island Hosp., 837 P.2d 95, 98 (Alaska 1992)). 70 See 3 AAC 48.110(a). 71 See 3 AAC 48.654(b), (e). 72 3 AAC 48.645(c) (“If the commission finds that two or more complete mutually exclusive applications have been timely filed, a public hearing will be held to afford an opportunity for examination of the applications on a comparative basis.”). 73 See 3 AAC 48.049. 74 While the RCA mentions the superior court’s finding that Valdez did not “provide the RCA with . . . me

1997III.DISCUSSION 3 In applying the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, a “court must decide the *1261 following: (1) is exhaustion of remedies required; (2) did the complainant exhaust those remedies; and (3) is the failure to exhaust remedies excused?” Eufemio v. Kodiak Island Hosp., 837 P.2d 95, 98-99 (Alaska 1992).

1989Van Hyning v. University of Alaska, 621 P.2d 1354, 1356 (Alaska 1981) [, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 958 [ 102 S.Ct. 495 ], 70 L.Ed.2d 373 (1981)].

1982Van Hyning v. University of Alaska, 621 P.2d 1354, 1356 (Alaska 1981).

2024The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine limits the availability of judicial relief “until the available administrative remedies have been exhausted.”52 “[T]he basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its 47 266 P.3d 1043 (Alaska 2011). 48 Id. at 1044-45 . 49 Cf. id. at 1044 . 50 Cf. id. at 1043-44 . 51 Cf. id. at 1044 . 52 Winterrowd v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 288 P.3d 446, 450 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 176 (Alaska 1982)

2024The RCA’s regulations do not allow interventions in 69 See State v. Beard, 960 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1998) (quoting Eufemio v. Kodiak Island Hosp., 837 P.2d 95, 98 (Alaska 1992)). 70 See 3 AAC 48.110(a). 71 See 3 AAC 48.654(b), (e). 72 3 AAC 48.645(c) (“If the commission finds that two or more complete mutually exclusive applications have been timely filed, a public hearing will be held to afford an opportunity for examination of the applications on a comparative basis.”). 73 See 3 AAC 48.049. 74 While the RCA mentions the superior court’s finding that Valdez did not “provide the RCA with . . . me

2024Co. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 773 P.2d 201, 206 (Alaska 1989). 80 See 3 AAC 48.110 (intervention); 3 AAC 48.654(b) (protest). 81 Cf. Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 181 (Alaska 1982) (excusing failure to exhaust administrative remedies where pursuing those remedies “would be futile due to the certainty of an adverse decision”). -27- 7697 b.

2019Under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, however, the superior court could only hear the issue on appeal from a decision by the ALJ.9 We therefore instruct the superior court to remand the issue to the Division. 7 See Levi, 433 P.3d at 1147 . 8 See 7 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 49.030 (2015) (requiring a request for fair hearing to be filed within 30 days of notice of the challenged action). 9 See Seybert v. Alsworth, 367 P.3d 32, 36 (Alaska 2016) (“In general, a party may not seek relief in a judicial forum until that party has exhausted his or her available (continued...) -5- 1741 C.

1988See Carlson v. State, 598 P.2d 969, 973 (Alaska 1979); Ransom v. Haner, 362 P.2d 282, 285 (Alaska 1961).

1988See Carlson v. State, 598 P.2d 969, 973 (Alaska 1979); Ransom v. Haner, 362 P.2d 282, 285 (Alaska 1961).

1982McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194, 203 (1969); Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 , 51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463 , 82 L.Ed. 638, 644 (1937).

1982McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194, 203 (1969); Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 , 51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463 , 82 L.Ed. 638, 644 (1937).

1982McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194, 203 (1969); Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 , 51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463 , 82 L.Ed. 638, 644 (1937).

1982McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194, 203 (1969); Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 , 51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 463 , 82 L.Ed. 638, 644 (1937).