Colwell v. Managed Care of North America, 955 N.W.2d 744

Robert F. Colwell Jr., D.D.S., through his corporation, contracted with Managed Care of North America (MCNA) to provide Nebraska Medicaid dental services under a one-year agreement with automatic renewals and a 90‑day termination notice clause.
MCNA sent a certified letter dated April 24, 2019, notifying Colwell it would not renew (terminating participation effective August 23, 2019).
Colwell filed suit in Douglas County challenging nonpayment and sought injunctive relief; he also submitted a "Request for Fair Hearing" to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on August 21, 2019, seeking review of MCNA’s April 24 letter.
DHHS acknowledged the request but dismissed it on September 17, 2019, as involving an action by MCNA that DHHS could not hear (and/or as untimely); Colwell then filed two challenges in Lancaster County (an APA appeal and a petition in error).
The Lancaster district court dismissed both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding DHHS lacked jurisdiction because Colwell’s written hearing request was untimely under 471 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 2, § 003.01A(3) (90 days from the "date of the action").
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when the adverse action is a termination, the "date of the action" is the date notice is issued (April 24), so Colwell’s August 21 request was untimely and DHHS—and therefore the courts on appeal—lacked jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When a termination has a future effective date, is the "date of the action" for the 90‑day appeal period the termination notice date or the effective date?	Colwell: "date of the action" = effective date (Aug 23); appeal filed Aug 21 would be timely under his reading.	Appellees (MCNA/DHHS): "date of the action" = date notice issued (Apr 24); appeal must be within 90 days of notice.	Held: "Date of the action" is the notice date (Apr 24). Colwell’s Aug 21 request was untimely; DHHS lacked jurisdiction.
Did the district court err by receiving filings from the Douglas County case and other evidence outside the administrative record?	Colwell: admission of new evidence was improper.	Appellees: evidence relevant to timeliness/jurisdiction; court may consider.	Held: Court did not reach merits of this assignment—dismissal on timeliness was dispositive.
Did dismissal without adjudicating the merits violate Colwell’s due process or deny an appealable issue?	Colwell: dismissal denied due process and failed to consider whether DHHS should have heard the appeal.	Appellees: dismissal appropriate because untimely filing deprived DHHS of jurisdiction.	Held: Timeliness/jurisdictional dismissal was proper; courts need not address appealability or merits.

J.S. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 306 Neb. 20, 944 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2020) (treating administrative regulations like statutes and applying plain‑meaning construction)
McManus Enters. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 303 Neb. 56, 926 N.W.2d 660 (Neb. 2019) (construe related regulations together to maintain a consistent scheme)
Creighton St. Joseph Hosp. v. Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 260 Neb. 905, 620 N.W.2d 90 (Neb. 2000) (untimely administrative appeals deprive agency of subject matter jurisdiction)
Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004, 653 N.W.2d 846 (Neb. 2002) (courts should not read into regulations meanings not expressed by the drafters)