1. Notwithstanding the authority granted in chapter 28-32 allowing agency heads or other persons to preside in an administrative proceeding, all adjudicative proceedings of administrative agencies under chapter 28-32, except those of the public service commission, the industrial commission, the insurance commissioner, the department of water resources, the department of transportation, job service North Dakota, and the labor commissioner, must be conducted by the office of administrative hearings in accordance with the adjudicative proceedings provisions of chapter 28-32 and any rules adopted pursuant to chapter 28-32. But, appeals hearings pursuant to section 61-03-22 and drainage appeals from water resource boards to the department of water resources pursuant to chapter 61-32 must be conducted by the office of administrative hearings. Additionally, hearings of the department of corrections and rehabilitation for the parole board in accordance with chapter 12-59, regarding parole violations; job discipline and dismissal appeals to the board of higher education; Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and section 504 due process hearings of the superintendent of public instruction; and chapter 37-19.1 veterans' preferences hearings for any agency must be conducted by the office of administrative hearings in accordance with applicable laws.
2. The agency head shall make a written request to the director requesting the designation of an administrative law judge to preside for each administrative proceeding or adjudicative proceeding to be held.
3. Informal disposition of an administrative proceeding or adjudicative proceeding may be made by an agency at any time before or after the designation of an administrative law judge from the office of administrative hearings.
4. If a party to an administrative proceeding or adjudicative proceeding is in default, the agency may issue a default order and a written notice of default, including a statement of the grounds for default, prior to the hearing. The agency shall determine all the issues involved. If issued, the default notice and order must be served upon all the parties and the administrative law judge, if one has been designated to preside. After service of the default notice and order, if a hearing is necessary to complete the administrative action with or without the participation of the party in default, an administrative law judge from the office of administrative hearings must preside.
5. When designating administrative law judges to preside in an administrative proceeding or adjudicative proceeding, the director shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge having expertise in the subject matter to be dealt with.
6. The director of administrative hearings may assign an administrative law judge to preside in an administrative proceeding or adjudicative proceeding, upon request, to any agency exempted from the provisions of this section, to any agency, or part of any agency, that is not an administrative agency subject to the provisions of chapter 28-32, to any unit of local government in this state, to any tribal government in this state, to the judicial branch, or to any agency to conduct a rulemaking hearing. \n 54-57-03.1. Hearings after judgment. The office of administrative hearings may not hold hearings on the same issue involving the same parties as the original hearing after a judgment has been rendered by a court concerning that issue unless authorized to or directed to by that court.\n\n Page No. 2 54-57-04. Duties of administrative law judges. All administrative law judges shall comply with the duties of hearing officers under section 28-32-31 for all hearings of administrative agencies under chapter 28-32, as well as for all hearings of administrative agencies not under chapter 28-32, in accordance with applicable laws. \n 54-57-05. Uniform rules of administrative practice or procedure - Effective date - Administrative law judge rules.
1. The director of administrative hearings shall adopt, in accordance with chapter 28-32, rules of administrative hearings practice or procedure which implement chapter 28-32 and which aid in the course and conduct of all administrative hearings and related proceedings conducted by administrative agencies under chapter 28-32. The uniform rules must be used by all administrative agencies subject to chapter 28-32 which do not have their own rules of administrative hearings practice or procedure governing the course and conduct of hearings. If an administrative agency's rules are silent on any aspect of the agency's administrative hearings practice or procedure, the applicable uniform rule governs.
2. The director of administrative hearings may adopt rules to further establish qualifications for administrative law judges; to establish procedures for requesting and designating administrative law judges; and to facilitate the performance of duties and responsibilities conferred by this chapter. Any rules adopted by the director of administrative hearings pursuant to this subsection must be adopted in accordance with chapter 28-32. \n
Notes of Decisions
Med. Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995).
· cites it 4× “" [2] N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(1). The provisions for designation of an administrative hearing officer are applicable to a petition for a public hearing for reconsideration of a certificate of need.”
North Dakota Sec. Comm'r v. Juran & Moody, Inc., 2000 ND 136 (N.D. 2000).
· cites it 4× “§ 54-57-03(4) indicates “the director [of the OAH] shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge having expertise in the subject matter to be dealt with,” the OAH is not a specialized agency and the ALJ is not interpreting the OAH’s own rules.”
Workforce Saf. & Ins. v. Auck, 2010 ND 126 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Although N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(4) states the director of the office of administrative hearings (“OAH”) shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge with expertise in the particular subject matter, the OAH is not a specialized agency and the ALJ is not interpreting the OAH’s…”
Peterson v. North Dakota Univ. Sys., 2004 ND 82 (N.D. 2004).
· cites it 2× “54-57, by reviewing the record and, based upon that review making recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommended order to the Board.”
Saakian v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 227 (N.D. 1998).
· cites it 2× “, forbids a “person who has served as investigator, prosecutor, or advocate in the investigatory or prehearing stage of an adjudicative proceeding” from serving as a hearing officer.”
Singha v. North Dakota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1998 ND 42 (N.D. 1998).
· cites it 2× “1 (Procedure at hearing); 28-32-12 (Agency to make record); 28-32-13 (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of agency); 28-32-14 (Petition for reconsideration); 28-32-15 (Appeal from determination of agency); 28-32-17 (Agency to maintain and certify record on appeal).”
Larsen v. Comm'n on Med. Competency, 1998 ND 193 (N.D. 1998).
· cites it 2× “4 and N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(3), the Board could have proceeded against Larsen in default, “but the Commission elected to present a prima facie case.”
Dittus v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1993).
“See § 54-57-03(1), N.D.C.C. In seeking and obtaining the exemption, Department officials relied on our decision in Pladson, supra, and argued that the large number of hearings it conducts, the increased costs involved, and the logistics of its hearings justified exclusion from…”
Hoover v. NDDOT, 2024 ND 8 (N.D. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Compare N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(1) (exempting the Department from the requirement that its adjudicative proceedings “be conducted by the office of administrative hearings in accordance with the adjudicative proceedings provisions of chapter 28-32 and any rules adopted pursuant to…”
Cladding Tech., Inc. v. State ex rel. Clayburgh, 1997 ND 84 (N.D. 1997).
· cites it 4× “See N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03. The hearing officer presided throughout the formal administrative proceedings and prepared recommended findings and a recommended order for the Board.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 54-57-03(1) — 8 cases
Med. Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995).
“" [2] N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(1). The provisions for designation of an administrative hearing officer are applicable to a petition for a public hearing for reconsideration of a certificate of need.”
Singha v. North Dakota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1998 ND 42 (N.D. 1998).
“1 (Procedure at hearing); 28-32-12 (Agency to make record); 28-32-13 (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of agency); 28-32-14 (Petition for reconsideration); 28-32-15 (Appeal from determination of agency); 28-32-17 (Agency to maintain and certify record on appeal).”
North Dakota Sec. Comm'r v. Juran & Moody, Inc., 2000 ND 136 (N.D. 2000).
“§ 54-57-03(4) indicates “the director [of the OAH] shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge having expertise in the subject matter to be dealt with,” the OAH is not a specialized agency and the ALJ is not interpreting the OAH’s own rules.”
Dittus v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 100 (N.D. 1993).
“See § 54-57-03(1), N.D.C.C. In seeking and obtaining the exemption, Department officials relied on our decision in Pladson, supra, and argued that the large number of hearings it conducts, the increased costs involved, and the logistics of its hearings justified exclusion from…”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 54-57-03(2) — 1 case
Saakian v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 227 (N.D. 1998).
“, forbids a “person who has served as investigator, prosecutor, or advocate in the investigatory or prehearing stage of an adjudicative proceeding” from serving as a hearing officer.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 54-57-03(3) — 1 case
Larsen v. Comm'n on Med. Competency, 1998 ND 193 (N.D. 1998).
“4 and N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(3), the Board could have proceeded against Larsen in default, “but the Commission elected to present a prima facie case.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 54-57-03(4) — 2 cases
Workforce Saf. & Ins. v. Auck, 2010 ND 126 (N.D. 2010).
“Although N.D.C.C. § 54-57-03(4) states the director of the office of administrative hearings (“OAH”) shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge with expertise in the particular subject matter, the OAH is not a specialized agency and the ALJ is not interpreting the OAH’s…”
North Dakota Sec. Comm'r v. Juran & Moody, Inc., 2000 ND 136 (N.D. 2000).
“§ 54-57-03(4) indicates “the director [of the OAH] shall attempt to assign an administrative law judge having expertise in the subject matter to be dealt with,” the OAH is not a specialized agency and the ALJ is not interpreting the OAH’s own rules.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.