- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
- Date Filed: 12-13-2017
- Case #: A158053
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner sought review of a final order by the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) following a grant of summary determination in favor of DPSST by an administrative law judge (ALJ). Petitioner assigned error to the ALJ's grant of the motion for summary determination. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the admitted improprieties gave the ALJ the discretion, not the duty, to revoke his credentials. Accordingly, Petitioner contended that it was improper for the ALJ to grant the motion without first holding a hearing. In response, DPSST argued that the ALJ acted appropriately in granting the motion for summary determination because Petitioner’s conviction for lying to a police officer and the underlying facts regarding the conviction were not in dispute. An ALJ may grant a motion for summary determination when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that is relevant to the resolution of the legal issue, and issues may be resolved by a motion for summary determination only when a single and particular result can come from the application of the facts to the law. OAR 137-003-0580(6)(a); Hamlin v. PERB, 273 Or App 796, 798 (2015). The Court of Appeals held that since the decision made by DPSST was discretionary, there was no single resolution required by application of the facts to the law, and thus the ALJ erred in granting the motion for summary determination. Reversed and remanded.