Administrative Rules of Montana Department 37 - PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
I. Administrative Rules of Montana — Department 37 (DPHHS)
The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) is governed by Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 37. These rules provide detailed procedures for:
Public Health Services – disease reporting, vaccination programs, communicable disease control.
Human Services Programs – Medicaid administration, senior and adult protective services, child welfare services.
Fair Hearings and Contested Cases – procedures for individuals or providers to challenge agency decisions.
Healthcare Facility Oversight – standards for nursing homes, hospitals, and home care providers.
Licensing and Certification – provider and facility licensure requirements.
Protective Services – rules for investigation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of children and vulnerable adults.
The rules are designed to implement state law while providing procedural guidance to the agency, regulated entities, and the public.
II. Case Law Involving Department 37 Rules
Below are five cases illustrating judicial application of Department 37 rules:
1. Bailey v. Montana DPHHS (2015)
Facts:
Lisa Bailey, a Medicaid recipient, requested coverage for gastric bypass surgery. DPHHS denied it, citing Medicaid coverage rules under Department 37. Bailey challenged the denial through a fair hearing and then in court.
Legal Issues:
Whether DPHHS properly applied administrative rules.
Whether the rule excluding coverage was inconsistent with federal Medicaid law.
Decision:
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the Department’s denial, ruling the rules were reasonable and consistent with federal law.
Significance:
Shows courts generally defer to DPHHS’s interpretation of its own rules when consistent with statutes.
2. DPHHS v. M. Johnson (2025)
Facts:
DPHHS sought to recover Medicaid funds from the heir of a deceased recipient. The probate court rejected the claim as untimely.
Legal Issues:
Whether DPHHS could recover funds independent of probate deadlines.
Authority under administrative rules governing Medicaid recovery.
Decision:
The Montana Supreme Court allowed the recovery, holding that DPHHS has statutory authority separate from probate procedures.
Significance:
Demonstrates the breadth of DPHHS authority under administrative rules and statutory law.
3. Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State of Montana (2023)
Facts:
DPHHS amended rules restricting Medicaid abortion coverage, requiring prior authorization and limiting providers. Providers challenged the rules as unconstitutional.
Legal Issues:
Whether DPHHS exceeded statutory authority.
Compliance with procedural requirements under Montana Administrative Procedure Act.
Constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection.
Decision:
Courts reviewed the procedures and substantive rules; litigation is ongoing, but preliminary rulings emphasized careful adherence to rulemaking procedure and consideration of constitutional concerns.
Significance:
Highlights tension between agency rulemaking and constitutional rights in public health services.
4. Transgender Birth Certificate Rule Litigation (2024–2025)
Facts:
DPHHS adopted rules restricting changes to sex designation on birth certificates. Plaintiffs argued discrimination against transgender individuals.
Legal Issues:
Authority to adopt such rules.
Compliance with constitutional protections against sex discrimination.
Decision:
A district court temporarily blocked enforcement, citing discrimination and procedural issues in rule adoption.
Significance:
Shows that Department 37 rules, though administrative, must comply with constitutional and statutory limitations.
5. Mercer v. DPHHS (2024)
Facts:
DPHHS filed to prevent a district court from ordering the agency director to testify in a competency proceeding.
Legal Issues:
Limits of judicial authority over agency officials.
Procedural latitude under Department 37 rules.
Decision:
The petition became moot, but the case emphasized judicial deference to administrative processes and agency rule-based procedures.
Significance:
Illustrates procedural boundaries and the agency’s ability to control participation in contested proceedings.
III. Key Themes from the Cases
Administrative Deference: Courts usually defer to DPHHS when rules are reasonable and statutory.
Procedural Compliance: Challenges often focus on adherence to rulemaking and fair hearing procedures.
Constitutional Limits: Even valid rules can be blocked if they violate constitutional rights.
Scope of Authority: Department 37 rules provide broad authority, but courts ensure they do not exceed statutory or constitutional bounds.
Contested Cases and Appeals: Beneficiaries, providers, and third parties can challenge adverse administrative actions through fair hearings and judicial review.
IV. Conclusion
The Administrative Rules of Montana — Department 37 serve as a framework for public health and human services operations. Judicial cases show that while DPHHS enjoys deference in interpreting and applying its rules, constitutional safeguards and procedural requirements are always enforceable. These cases illustrate how courts balance agency authority, individual rights, and public welfare responsibilities.
RELATED Blog
comments