Ibsen v. MSBME, 2021 MT 298N

Dr. Mark Ibsen faced disciplinary proceedings that led to a 2016 Board order indefinitely suspending his Montana medical license; the matter was remanded after a 2018 judicial-review win.
A new hearing examiner completed review in March 2020; on October 8, 2020 the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners issued an Amended Final Order placing Ibsen’s license on 180 days’ probation.
Ibsen sought an emergency stay (filed Nov. 4, 2020); the District Court granted a stay on Nov. 5, 2020. The Board moved to dismiss Ibsen’s mandamus and lift the stay; oral argument was Dec. 18, 2020.
On Jan. 4, 2021 the District Court denied Ibsen’s mandamus petition (calling it an improper vehicle) but left a stay in place for 30 days to allow Ibsen to pursue other relief; judgment was entered Jan. 12 and noticed Jan. 14.
Ibsen did not appeal the Jan. 12 judgment but filed a petition for judicial review two weeks after notice of entry (outside the 30-day MAPA window measured from the Board’s Oct. 8 order). The District Court dismissed the petition with prejudice as untimely and denied equitable tolling; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ibsen’s petition for judicial review was timely under MAPA’s 30‑day rule	Ibsen: filing within 30 days of the District Court’s stay-continuation/mandamus denial preserved his filing period	Board: the 30‑day period runs from agency’s final written decision (Oct. 8, 2020); Ibsen filed too late	Court: petition untimely; dismissal affirmed
Whether the District Court’s stay tolled the 30‑day filing deadline	Ibsen: the court’s stay and its statement allowing him to pursue relief meant the deadline was tolled	Board: the stay did not alter the order’s status as a final agency decision for MAPA purposes	Court: stay did not toll the filing period; finality unaffected
Whether pursuing a writ of mandamus equitably tolled the MAPA deadline	Ibsen: pursuing mandamus was a reasonable, good‑faith alternative and justified tolling	Board: mandamus did not excuse timely filing and Ibsen gave no legally sufficient reason for delay	Court: equitable tolling not warranted; pursuing mandamus was not a legally sufficient reason to delay judicial review
Whether Board’s delay in issuing its order under §2‑4‑623, MCA, made the order void	Ibsen: Board’s failure to issue order within 90 days rendered order unenforceable	Board: contested; argued timeliness rules still govern; Ibsen offered no supporting authority	Court: argument forfeited—no legal analysis or authority provided, so Court declined to consider it

BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 281 P.3d 203 (2012) (equitable principles can, in limited circumstances, excuse strict compliance with time bars)
Lozeau v. GEICO Indem. Co., 207 P.3d 316 (2009) (three‑part test for tolling when plaintiff pursues alternate remedies)
Weidow v. Uninsured Emp'rs Fund, 246 P.3d 704 (2010) (equitable tolling where statute ambiguous; emphasizes careful application)
Schoof v. Nesbit, 316 P.3d 831 (2014) (tolling appropriate where concealment and significant public interests implicated)
Billings Yellow Cab, LLC v. State of Montana, 335 P.3d 1223 (2014) (refusal to toll where petitioner failed to show legally sufficient reason for delaying judicial review)
Boehm v. Park County, 421 P.3d 789 (2018) (mandamus cannot be used to compel agency to undo or revise action already taken)
Brilz v. Metropolitan General Ins. Co., 285 P.3d 494 (2012) (de novo review applies to equitable‑tolling determinations)