903 N.W.2d 721
N.D.2017Background
- Yorhom (Altru Specialty Services) provided durable medical equipment to Medicaid recipients; a contractor audit found nine claims were overpayments totaling roughly $27,099 and recommended recoupment.
- The Department of Human Services issued a final order on April 13, 2016 finding $25,192.21 overpaid and authorizing recoupment.
- Yorhom sought administrative review and then filed a district-court notice of appeal and specification of errors on May 13, 2016; it served an assistant attorney general that same day and served the Department by mail on May 20, 2016.
- The Department moved to dismiss for improper/untimely service; the district court denied the motion and later reversed the Department’s order on the merits, finding statutory time requirements were not met by the agency.
- The Supreme Court held Yorhom failed to perfect its appeal because it did not serve the Department within the 30-day statutory period and service on the assistant AG was ineffective where the AG’s office had not represented the Department in the agency proceeding; therefore the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant timely and properly served the notice of appeal under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42 | Yorhom: serving an assistant AG satisfied statutory service; timely because served AG within 30 days | Department: agency itself was not served within 30 days; service on AG alone was insufficient here | Held: No — Yorhom did not serve the Department within 30 days, so appeal not perfected and court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether service on an assistant attorney general satisfies service on the agency when the AG did not represent the agency in the administrative proceeding | Yorhom: Sande and rules permit service on AG as representative of agency; Rule 5 service valid | Department: Sande is distinguishable because AG/assistant AG did not represent the Department in the agency proceeding; Rule 4 does not govern notices of appeal | Held: Service on assistant AG was insufficient where AG did not represent the agency in the administrative proceeding; Rule 4 does not displace statutory requirement to serve both agency and AG |
Key Cases Cited
- Opp v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2017 ND 101, 892 N.W.2d 891 (discussing district court appellate jurisdiction over agency decisions and statutory perfection requirements)
- Benson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 193, 672 N.W.2d 640 (statutory filing/serving requirements to perfect administrative appeals are jurisdictional)
- Sande v. State, 440 N.W.2d 264 (N.D. 1989) (service on assistant AG who represented the agency in the administrative proceeding constituted proper service on the agency)
- Inwards v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2014 ND 163, 851 N.W.2d 693 (N.D.R.Civ.P. 5 governs service of notices of appeal from agency decisions)
- Gaede v. Bertsch, 2017 ND 69, 891 N.W.2d 760 (statutory interpretation principles; give effect to all statutory provisions)