Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah agencies reconsider decisions after completing agency review? Bourgeous v. Department of Commerce Explained

1999 UT App 146
No. 981518-CA
May 6, 1999
Reversed and Remanded

Summary

Bourgeous challenged DOPL’s denial of his professional engineering license through agency review and reconsideration. The district court dismissed his subsequent judicial review petition as untimely, concluding that the initial agency review order constituted final agency action from which appeal should have been taken within thirty days.

Analysis

In Bourgeous v. Department of Commerce, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important procedural issue regarding when parties can seek reconsideration under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) and when the time period for judicial review begins to run.

Background and Facts

Keith Bourgeous applied for a professional engineering license, which the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) denied for lack of required educational documentation. After DOPL initially dismissed his request for agency review for procedural deficiencies, Bourgeous resubmitted his request with the required documentation. The Department issued an order on November 4, 1997, affirming the license denial. Bourgeous then sought reconsideration on November 21, 1997, which the Department addressed in a December 29, 1997 order. Bourgeous filed for judicial review on January 23, 1998.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether reconsideration was available after completing agency review under UAPA section 63-46b-13, and which agency order constituted final agency action for purposes of the thirty-day deadline for judicial review.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal, holding that reconsideration remains available after agency review. The court rejected the Department’s argument that section 63-46b-13 limits reconsideration to cases where agency review is unavailable. Instead, the court interpreted “unavailable” to mean that once agency review is completed, additional agency review becomes unavailable, making reconsideration the appropriate next step. The court emphasized that prior Utah decisions support the availability of reconsideration after agency review.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners navigating administrative appeals. When an agency rules on a reconsideration request and issues a final order, the thirty-day clock for judicial review runs from that final order, not from the initial agency review decision. Practitioners should carefully track which agency action constitutes final agency action and ensure compliance with UAPA’s strict timing requirements.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Bourgeous v. Department of Commerce

Citation

1999 UT App 146

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 981518-CA

Date Decided

May 6, 1999

Outcome

Reversed and Remanded

Holding

A party may seek reconsideration of an agency decision after completing agency review under UAPA, and judicial review must be sought within thirty days of the final agency order disposing of the reconsideration request.

Standard of Review

Correctness standard for the district court’s legal determination regarding jurisdiction

Practice Tip

When pursuing administrative appeals, carefully track which agency order constitutes final agency action—the clock for judicial review starts from the order that finally disposes of all available agency proceedings, including reconsideration.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Lindsey v. Lindsey

    March 2, 2017

    A spouse’s household and family responsibilities, coupled with intermittent assistance entertaining business clients, do not enhance, maintain, or protect the other spouse’s business interests for purposes of the contribution exception to the separate property rule.
    • Family Law
    • |
    • Property Rights
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Donovan v. Sutton

    September 30, 2021

    A person has a duty to exercise reasonable care while skiing, but a nine-year-old beginner skier who inadvertently loses control on a beginner run without departing from reasonable care for her age and experience does not breach this duty.
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.