Henderson v. Department of Motor Vehicles
1987 Conn. LEXIS 789, 202 Conn. 453, 521 A.2d 1040 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party proves that a prohibited ex parte communication occurred in an administrative proceeding, a rebuttable presumption of prejudice arises, and the burden of proof shifts to the agency to demonstrate that the communication did not prejudice the party's substantial rights.
Facts:
- David Henderson was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident.
- The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) scheduled an administrative hearing regarding the suspension of Henderson's driver's license.
- Attorney Jonas J. Meyer III was the adjudicator assigned to preside over the hearing.
- Approximately five minutes before the hearing, Meyer had a private conversation with state police trooper Thomas A. Brown, who had investigated the accident.
- During this ex parte communication, Meyer asked Brown for his conclusion as to who was driving the vehicle and they examined accident photographs together.
- This conversation took place outside the presence of Henderson and his attorney.
- The hearing began, and during the cross-examination of Brown, Henderson's attorney discovered the details of the pre-hearing conversation.
- The hearing was not completed on the first day and was continued three months later.
Procedural Posture:
- At the conclusion of a continued administrative hearing, Henderson moved to dismiss the proceeding due to the ex parte communication, which occurred three months prior.
- The adjudicator denied the motion and subsequently rendered a decision suspending Henderson's license.
- Henderson appealed the DMV's decision to the state trial court.
- The trial court dismissed the appeal, holding that Henderson had failed to demonstrate prejudice from the communication.
- Henderson, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing prejudice.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted Henderson's petition for certification on the limited issue of whether a party must prove prejudice from a prohibited ex parte communication.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When an administrative adjudicator engages in a prohibited ex parte communication, does the burden of proving that the communication caused prejudice fall on the party challenging the agency's decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Shea, J.
No. When a prohibited ex parte communication is proven, the burden of proof does not fall on the challenging party; instead, a presumption of prejudice arises, and the burden shifts to the agency to prove that no prejudice resulted. The court reasoned that placing the burden on the plaintiff would render the statutory prohibition against ex parte communications (General Statutes § 4-181) largely meaningless, as a party could already challenge a decision based on 'unlawful procedure' if they could prove prejudice. Imposing the burden on the plaintiff would also create a 'conundrum,' as one cannot ordinarily inquire into an adjudicator's mental processes to prove influence. Therefore, to give the statute effect and for practical reasons, once a violation is shown, the agency, which is in a better position to understand the communication, must demonstrate its harmlessness. Despite establishing this rule, the court affirmed the judgment against Henderson because he waived his claim by failing to object in a timely manner. Henderson learned of the communication at the start of the hearing but waited three months, until the end of the second hearing session, to raise the issue, which the court found was an impermissible attempt to 'anticipate a favorable decision' while reserving a right to impeach an unfavorable one.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical procedural safeguard in administrative law by creating a rebuttable presumption of prejudice following a proven ex parte communication. It significantly strengthens the prohibition against such communications by shifting the difficult burden of proving prejudice away from the individual and onto the agency. The ruling clarifies that the statutory ban on ex parte contacts has independent force beyond general due process claims. However, the decision simultaneously reinforces the 'raise or waive' rule, emphasizing that parties must assert claims of procedural error, such as a need for disqualification, with reasonable promptness, or they risk forfeiting the claim.
