7 NICS App. 42, COOPER v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL (July 2005)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Antoinette Denise Cooper, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Defendant/Appellee.
No. C-03-065/A-04-008; A-05-001 (July 8, 2005)
SYLLABUS*
Tribal Court, Appellate Division, remanded an arbitration award for the arbitrator to supplement his factual findings and state the legal bases for his decision. Court of Appeals dismisses Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal, holding tribal code only allows appeals of a final judgment or judgment on dispositive motion. Appellate Division order affirmed.
Before: Lisa E. Brodoff, Chief Justice; Lisa L. Atkinson, Justice; Darwin Long Fox, Justice.
OPINION
Background:
Appellant Antoinette Denise Cooper is the minor child of a Hoopa Valley Tribal member who was killed in the line of duty while working as a volunteer firefighter for the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Tribe provided funeral benefits, but refused to provide Fatality Income Benefits (death benefit). The case was submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator awarded a death benefit payable to Appellant. Lacking any wage upon which to base the death benefit, the arbitrator awarded the maximum amount permissible under the code. The Tribe timely appealed the Decision of Arbitration to Hoopa Valley Tribal Court.
On May 2, 2005, the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, Appellate Division (hereinafter “Tribal Court”) entered an Order reversing the Decision of Arbitration dated December 9, 2004. The Tribal Court remanded the matter back to the arbitrator for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On May 13, 2005, Cooper timely appealed the Tribal Court Decision to this Court.
7 NICS App. 42, COOPER v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL (July 2005) p. 43
Decision:
The Notice of Appeal is dismissed without prejudice. The Hoopa Valley Tribal Code provides for appeals only of “a final judgment, or judgment on a dispositive motion.” HVTC § 2.6.01(a), as amended April 11, 2005.1 The Tribal Court’s Decision is not an appealable final judgment because it remands this case back to the arbitrator to supplement the factual findings and state the legal bases for his Decision.
Further Analysis of Remand Decision:
This Court believes that it may be useful to the parties, the arbitrator, and any future reviewing courts to set out what we believe was ordered by the Tribal Court in its remand decision. The Tribal Court appropriately remands the matter back for further findings and legal conclusions: “Since the Court cannot tell from the Arbitrator’s Decision the evidentiary and legal basis for the finding that was made in this case and since this Court has interpreted the term “annual earnings” to include other Tribal employment and earning capacity, this matter will be reversed and remanded back for further proceedings.” Page 5 of Decision.
The Arbitration Decision provided no legal or factual basis for its determination that a Death Benefit was payable on behalf of Antoinette Cooper and in the maximum amount of $95,000. See page 1 of Decision of Arbitrator. Because the deceased worker was a volunteer firefighter at the time of his death and receiving no pay from this employment, it was essential to determine the legal and factual basis for setting a Death Benefit amount. The arbitration Decision failed to do that. In the appeal of that decision, the Tribal Court agreed that a Death Benefit could be payable in this case by interpreting Title 46, Section 10 (b) of the Hoopa Valley Code, defining the calculation of Workers’ Compensation Death benefits as: “Four times the annual earnings from the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council.” In its interpretation, the court held that the term “annual earnings” could include employment under the Tribal Council that was from earnings of the decedent different than the work that caused or contributed to the worker’s death. Further, the Court held that, in determining the amount of the death benefit, “the proper inquiry to make is what would the decedent have earned had he or she not died. … The proper inquiry for the Court, therefore, is what was the decedent’s earning capacity (from the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council) on the date of death.” Page 3 of Decision. The Court held that Evidence of the decedent’s employment in the future for the Tribal Council, either by the Tribal Fire Department or some other agency, would be relevant in determining the amount of death benefit payable.
7 NICS App. 42, COOPER v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL (July 2005) p. 44
Finally, the Tribal Court held that volunteer firefighters might be entitled to the same benefits as paid other Hoopa Valley firefighters, but that there was no evidence in the record of this case that establishes the annual earnings of these paid firefighters.
Therefore, this Court is providing the following suggested actions based on indications contained within the Tribal Court's opinion remanding the matter back to the Arbitrator for further proceedings:
1. Take evidence to establish any “annual earnings” of the decedent from all Hoopa Valley Tribal Council employment, including earnings from employment not related to firefighting;
2. Take evidence to establish what the decedent would have earned from any Hoopa Valley Tribal Council employment had he not died (earning capacity on the date of death);
3. Take evidence to establish whether or not there are paid Hoopa Valley firefighters and if so, evidence of their annual earnings;
4. Make factual findings on # 1 – 3;
5. Explain the legal bases for any findings of eligibility for a Death Benefit and the amount awarded.
It is the hope of this Court that the above-suggested courses of action will provide the clarity necessary for the Tribal Court to make a ruling on any further appeal of the Arbitrator's decision.
Conclusion:
The Notice of Appeal is dismissed without prejudice and the May 2, 2005 Decision of the Tribal Court is affirmed, with direction that the Tribal Court provide a copy of this opinion to the Arbitrator as well as the parties.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.
Appellant has styled her appeal on a former provision of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Code that allowed interlocutory appeals where “an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of the litigation.” However, that provision was repealed by the Tribal Council on April 11, 2005, prior to the filing of this Notice. Moreover, even if this former provision were still in effect, seeking purely advisory opinions from Appellate Courts on questions of law is more likely to delay and prolong litigation than advance its termination – this is one of the primary reasons interlocutory appeals are disfavored.