OPINIONS

OF THE

APPELLATE DIVISION

OF THE

HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA

(2011-2012)

AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT,
Appellant,

v.

PETER TINITALI,
Appellee.
___________________________________
High Court of American Samoa
Appellate Division

AP No. 02-12

August 3, 2012

[1] A court cannot render a decision or judgment in an action for which the court knows it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, any such judgment or decision is a nullity (provided the issue of jurisdiction is raised). Consequently, any party or the court itself can question the court’s jurisdiction. If a court is made to know or discovers it lacks jurisdiction over a controversy at any time during the litigation process, the court must dismiss that controversy.

[2] The Workmen’s Compensation Procedures and Claims chapter, A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0601-32.0674, lays out the procedure by which workmen’s compensation orders are issued, challenged, and reviewed. Within one year of an injury, a claimant must file a claim with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission (“WCC”). A.S.C.A. § 32.0627. The Commissioner of the WCC “may transfer such a case to any member of the Commission for the purpose of making investigation...or taking such other necessary action therein as may be directed, for the primary purpose of creating a record for disposition by the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with A.S.C.A. § 32.0653.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0629(a). The Commissioner or his designee may also decide to pursue settlement with the claimant, but, if after 45 days there is no settlement, the Commissioner or his designee “forward[s] the claim to the Administrative Law Judge for a decision to be made in accordance with A.S.C.A. 32.0653.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0629. The claim then comes before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who makes a decision on the claim, issuing a workmen’s compensation order pursuant to A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0635-32.0646. The ALJ then files this workmen’s compensation order with the Office of the Commissioner. A.S.C.A. § 32.0650. The “order becomes effective when filed in the Office of the Commissioner and, unless proceedings for the suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted, becomes final at the expiration of the thirtieth day thereafter.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0651.

[3] The judicial review of an Administrative Law Judge’s workmen’s compensation order is limited. However, to challenge the order, an aggrieved party must seek “injunction proceedings” with the High Court of American Samoa “against the Commissioner” to “suspend[] or set aside, in whole or in part,” the workmen’s compensation order. A.S.C.A. § 32.0652(a). The phrase “High Court” in A.S.C.A. § 32.0652(a) means the Trial Division of the High Court of American Samoa. Therefore, the judicial review of a workmen’s compensation order, issued by the ALJ, but filed with the Commissioner’s Office, requires an appeal, if any, to the Trial Division of the High Court.

[4] The Appellate Division lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to review an Administrative Law Judge’s workmen’s compensation order directly. 

[5] Where a workmen’s compensation claim filed with the Workmen’s Compensation Commission was then sent to the Administrative Law Judge, who then issued a workmen’s compensation order, that order does not become effective until the Administrative Law Judge files the workmen’s compensation order with the Office of the Commissioner. Regardless, after the order is filed with the Office of the Commissioner, the workmen’s compensation order can be reviewed within thirty days only through injunction proceedings in the Trial Division of the High Court, whereby the compensation order may be reviewed again on a narrow basis by the Appellate Division of the High Court. The order can be become final if no one applies for injunction proceedings in the Trial Division within thirty days after the order’s filing with the Office of the Commissioner. At any rate, the Appellate Division does not review a workmen’s compensation order that did not follow the above-outlined procedure and any such order “appealed” to the Appellate Division without following the above-outlined procedure shall be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Before: KRUSE, Chief Justice; RICHMOND, Associate Justice; WARD, Associate Justice; SU’APAIA, Associate Judge; FA’AMAUSILI, Associate Judge.

Counsel: 	For Appellant, Daniel Woods, Assistant Attorney General. 
For Appellee, Roy J.D. Hall, Jr.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns a Department of Education (“DOE”) employee, Appellee Peter Tinitali (“Tinitali”), who took ill while on a DOE business trip to the United States. Tinitali filed a workmen’s compensation claim with Workmen’s Compensation Commission (“WCC”); that claim was referenced to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ found that Tinitali suffered an “injury,” A.S.C.A. § 43.0502(i), while on the job, and rendered judgment in favor of Tinitali: $153,532.36, the [**2**] accumulated off-island medical expenses associated with Tinitali’s “work-related injury” (some form of pneumonia). 

Appellant American Samoa Government (“ASG”) is convinced that the statutory definition of “injury” cannot encompass pneumonia in this instance and sought to stay the ALJ’s decision (payment of the $153,532.36) pending appeal before a single-justice panel of the Appellate Division. Cf. A.S.C.A. § 43.0502(i). Tinitali did not file a brief concerning the stay, but instead questioned this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Appellate Division’s very ability to hear this appeal.

The single-justice panel decided that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction was a potentially dispositive decision and therefore inappropriate for one justice to decide. Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Tinitali, AP 02-11 slip op. at 2 (App. Div. Apr. 3, 2012) (order) (citing ACR 27(c)). Consequently, the subject matter jurisdiction issue came before the full panel on April 26, 2012; we ultimately hold that we do indeed lack the subject matter jurisdiction to decide this matter. 

DISCUSSION

[1] A court cannot render a decision or judgment in an action for which the court knows it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Generally, any such judgment or decision is a nullity (provided the issue of jurisdiction is raised). See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 11-12 (1982). Consequently, any party or the court itself can question the court’s jurisdiction. If a court is made [**3**] to know or discovers it lacks jurisdiction over a controversy at any time during the litigation process, the court must dismiss that controversy. T.C.R.C.P. 12(h)(3); see also Am. Samoa Gov’t v. Progressive Ins. Co., AP No. 10-07, slip op. at 6-8 (App. Div. Jan. 25, 2010).

[2] The Workmen’s Compensation Procedures and Claims chapter, A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0601-32.0674, lays out the procedure by which workmen’s compensation orders are issued, challenged, and reviewed. Within one year of an injury, a claimant must file a claim with the WCC. A.S.C.A. § 32.0627. The Commissioner of the WCC “may transfer such a case to any member of the Commission for the purpose of making investigation...or taking such other necessary action therein as may be directed, for the primary purpose of creating a record for disposition by the Administrative Law Judge in accordance with A.S.C.A. § 32.0653.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0629(a). The Commissioner or his designee may also decide to pursue settlement with the claimant, but, if after 45 days there is no settlement, the Commissioner or his designee “forward[s] the claim to the Administrative Law Judge for a decision to be made in accordance with A.S.C.A. 32.0653.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0629. The claim then comes before the ALJ, who makes a decision on the claim, issuing a workmen’s compensation order pursuant to A.S.C.A. §§ 32.0635-32.0646. The ALJ then files this workmen’s compensation order with the Office of the Commissioner. A.S.C.A. § 32.0650. The “order becomes effective [**4**] when filed in the Office of the Commissioner and, unless proceedings for the suspension or setting aside of such order are instituted, becomes final at the expiration of the thirtieth day thereafter.” A.S.C.A. § 32.0651.

[3] The judicial review of an ALJ’s workmen’s compensation order is limited. A.S.C.A. § 32.0652; see also Nat'l Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Comm'r, 5 A.S.R.3d 183, 188-95 (Trial Div. 2001) (discusses judicial review process of certain WCC and ALJ decisions). However, to challenge the order, an aggrieved party must seek “injunction proceedings” with the High Court of American Samoa “against the Commissioner” to “suspend[] or set aside, in whole or in part,” the order. A.S.C.A. § 32.0652(a). The phrase “High Court” in this statute means the Trial Division of the High Court of American Samoa. See, e.g., Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Comm’n, 15 A.S.R.2d 130 (Trial Div. 1990). Therefore, the judicial review of a workmen’s compensation order, issued by the ALJ, but filed with the Commissioner’s Office, requires an appeal, if any, to the Trial Division of the High Court pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 32.0652. Because the order bears the imprimatur of the Commissioner, filing an “injunction proceeding...against the Commissioner” is, despite Tinitali’s contrary argument, required by statute.

[4] The Appellate Division lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s workmen’s compensation order; as we have specified, the process the Fono articulated for workmen’s [**5**] compensation claims are “specifically exempted by...statute” from the typical APA/ALJ agency review process. A.S.C.A. § 4.0604(h); see also Samoa Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Am. Samoa Gov’t, AP No. 09-09 at 6-7 (App. Div. Nov. 10, 2011). 

[5] Here, proper procedure is not reflected in the record. Tinitali filed his claim with the WCC; the WCC sent that claim to the ALJ; the ALJ issued a workmen’s compensation order. However, there is nothing in the record indicating the ALJ has filed his workmen’s compensation order with the Office of the Commissioner. A.S.C.A. § 32.0650. Once the ALJ’s order is filed with the Office of the Commissioner, the order becomes effective and, after 30 days of non-activity, final. A.S.C.A. § 32.0651. However, if within 30 days of the order’s filing, a party seeks injunction proceedings in the Trial Division of the High Court, the order is not final and must undergo the limited judicial review envisioned by statute before becoming so. Id. Such judicial review could potentially bring this matter before us again: as an appeal from the Trial Division’s injunction proceedings decision. Nevertheless, we hold that this appeal is improperly before us at this time.

ORDER [**6**]

[5] We dismiss this appeal without prejudice for the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the same. This order, of course, renders ASG’s Motion For Stay moot.

It is so ordered.