AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioner Angel Martinez was issued a DWI citation and a notice of license revocation on February 22, 2020, for refusing a chemical test to determine blood alcohol level. Following a request for a hearing to contest the revocation, the Administrative Hearing Office (the Office) scheduled a telephonic hearing due to COVID-19 restrictions, over Petitioner's objection for an in-person hearing (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the nonessential business closure due to COVID-19 did not apply to the Office, that in-person hearings could have been conducted under mass-gathering restrictions, that the Administrative Hearing Officer (AHO) improperly relied on the Supreme Court’s court closure order, and that a telephonic hearing was unauthorized and hindered proper credibility assessment (para 1).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the nonessential business closure due to COVID-19 applied to the Administrative Hearing Office.
• Whether the Office could have conducted in-person hearings under mass-gathering restrictions.
• Whether the AHO improperly relied on the Supreme Court’s court closure order to justify a telephonic hearing.
• Whether conducting a telephonic hearing was unauthorized and prevented proper credibility determination (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the AHO to sustain the revocation of Petitioner's license, holding that the nonessential business closure applied to the Office, and the decision to conduct a telephonic hearing was in accordance with the law (para 38).

Reasons

• The Court found that the nonessential business closure due to COVID-19 applied to State departments and agencies, including the Office, requiring compliance with the closure. The Court held that the Office was required to close in compliance with the Second Public Health Emergency Order (PHEO) and that the AHO did not act as an advocate or in a partial manner when overruling the objection to a telephonic hearing. The Court also determined that the AHO did not improperly hold herself out as a judge or rely on the Supreme Court's COVID-19 orders when deciding to hold a telephonic hearing. Finally, the Court was not persuaded by the argument that the telephonic hearing was unauthorized or that it prevented a proper credibility determination, citing the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 public health crisis and the legislative authority under the Public Health Emergency Response Act (PHERA) (paras 13-37).