Opinion
13-P-1000
04-15-2014
BARBARA SIMMONS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY & another.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the judge committed an error of law or abused her discretion when she dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff, Barbara Simmons, that was filed more than thirty days after defendant board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds (board), see G. L. c. 26, § 8A, denied her appeal of an automobile insurance surcharge imposed by defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. See G. L. c. 175, § 113P.
The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal also was denied.
When a party seeks judicial review of an agency decision, as in this case, she must file the complaint, or a motion to extend the time for filing a complaint, within thirty days after receipt of notice of the final decision of the agency. G. L. c. 30A, § 14(1). In this case, the board issued its final decision on August 13, 2012, but the plaintiff's complaint was not filed until October 22, 2012, well beyond the thirty-day period required by G. L. c. 30A, § 14(1). Furthermore, the plaintiff's motion to extend the time for filing a complaint was not filed until November 5, 2012. The plaintiff's argument that the statutory requirements should be overlooked because there is no evidence that the defendants will suffer any prejudice is beside the point. The thirty-day deadline imposed by the statute is 'jurisdictional,' and 'not susceptible to extension except in limited circumstances as provided in the statute.' Maitland v. Board of Registration in Med., 448 Mass. 1006, 1007 (2007), quoting from Friedman v. Board of Registration in Med., 414 Mass. 663, 666 (1993). A judge lacks the authority to override the statutory appeal period even when it appears that the aggrieved party has a meritorious issue. See ibid. Here, the judge did not abuse her discretion in acting on her own to dismiss the complaint because courts have 'both the power and the obligation to resolve problems of subject matter jurisdiction whenever they become apparent.' Nature Church v. Assessors of Belchertown, 384 Mass. 811, 812 (1981).
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, Fecteau & Agnes, JJ.),