This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The worker filed a compensation claim after being dissatisfied with the judge assigned to her case by the Workers' Compensation Administration (WCA). The worker attempted to exercise her right to peremptorily challenge the second judge assigned to her case, but the WCA refused to honor the challenge, citing its interpretation of Rule XXIII of its formal hearing rules (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The WCA granted the employer's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the worker's compensation claim with prejudice (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCA misinterpreted Rule XXIII and that the rule does not mandate a provisional challenge as the only means of challenging a subsequently-assigned judge. Alternatively, the worker contended that if the rule does require a provisional challenge, it violates the statutory right to peremptorily challenge one judge (paras 5-6).
- Respondents (Employer and Insurer): Asserted that the worker waived her right to challenge the second judge by failing to file a provisional challenge within ten days of the initial notice of judge assignment, as required by Rule XXIII (paras 4-5).
Legal Issues
- Did the WCA err in refusing to honor the worker's peremptory challenge to the second judge assigned to her case?
- Does Rule XXIII of the WCA's formal hearing rules require a provisional challenge as the sole means of challenging a subsequently-assigned judge?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the WCA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 9).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Alarid C.J. and Bivins J. concurring):
The court held that the WCA misinterpreted Rule XXIII. The plain language of the rule does not mandate a provisional challenge as the only means of exercising a peremptory challenge to a subsequently-assigned judge. The rule permits, but does not require, a provisional challenge. A party may also wait until a new judge is assigned and then file a peremptory challenge within ten days of the notice of reassignment. The WCA's interpretation was inconsistent with the rule's language and failed to provide clear guidance to litigants (paras 6-8).
The court emphasized that procedural rules must be definite and certain to ensure fair treatment for all litigants. If the WCA intends to require provisional challenges to preserve the right to challenge a subsequently-assigned judge, it must use clearer language in its rules (para 8).
The court concluded that the worker's peremptory challenge to the second judge was valid and should have been honored. Consequently, all actions taken by the second judge after the challenge were void (para 9).