220PA24
N.C.May 22, 2026Background
- DHHS revoked Bradley Home’s two mental-health facility licenses and mailed notice of the decision on 3 August 2021. 1
- The notice told Bradley Home it could seek a contested-case hearing within 60 days of mailing. 2
- Bradley Home filed its petition 63 days after mailing, and DHHS moved to dismiss as untimely. 3
- The ALJ dismissed the petition, the superior court reversed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court in a divided opinion. 4
- The Supreme Court allowed discretionary review to decide whether Rule 6(e) adds three days when the agency’s notice is mailed. 5
- The Court held that Rule 6(e) does not apply to the 60-day period to commence a contested case and affirmed dismissal. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 6(e) extend the 60-day petition deadline? 7 | Bradley Home says mailed notice adds three days. | DHHS says the deadline is statutory and not extended. | No; Rule 6(e) does not apply. 8 |
| Is the filing deadline part of a contested case? 9 | Bradley Home says the APA rules govern. | DHHS says no contested case exists until filed. | No; it is a pre-commencement deadline. 10 |
| Does agency mailing count as Rule 6(e) service? 11 | Bradley Home says mailing is service. | DHHS says agency notice is not service. | No; agency notice is not Rule 6 service. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Krishnan v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 274 N.C. App. 170 (2020) (mailing gives statutory notice when the decision is placed in the mail 13)
- House of Raeford Farms, Inc. v. State ex rel. Env't Mgmt. Comm'n, 338 N.C. 262 (1994) (failure to comply with the 60-day limitation bars OAH review 14)
- Smith v. Daniels Int'l, 64 N.C. App. 381 (1983) (dismissal for missing the 60-day contested-case deadline 15)
- Gummels v. N.C. Dep't of Hum. Res., 98 N.C. App. 675 (1990) (deadline computation under the APA and dismissal for untimeliness 16)
- Empire Power Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Env't, Health & Nat. Res., 337 N.C. 569 (1994) (a contested case does not exist until the petition is filed 17)
- State ex rel. Comm'r of Ins. v. N.C. Fire Ins. Rating Bureau, 291 N.C. 55 (1976) (courts avoid interpretations that create constitutional problems 18)
- Delconte v. State, 313 N.C. 384 (1985) (interpretation should avoid unconstitutional or ultra vires readings 19)
- In re N.C. Auto. Rate Admin. Off., 278 N.C. 302 (1971) (agencies need legislative authority to promulgate regulations 20)
- Motsinger v. Perryman, 218 N.C. 15 (1940) (regulations beyond legislative authority are ultra vires 21)
- Hardbarger v. Deal, 258 N.C. 31 (1962) (statutory limitation periods ending on a holiday or weekend extend to the next business day 22)
- Martin v. Pope, 257 N.C. App. 641 (2018) (filing deadlines should be applied uniformly 23)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (deadlines can seem harsh but must be enforced if they have meaning 24)