Mayer v. Board of Psychologists, Department of Labor & Industry
2014 MT 85
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Taylor Mayer earned a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Walden University (an online, HLC-accredited but not APA-accredited program) and applied for Montana psychologist licensure under § 37-17-302(3)(c), so his program had to meet Board-prescribed curricular and residency rules for non-APA programs.
- The Board denied Mayer’s application (June 17, 2010), citing failure to meet academic residency, curricular sequence/content, and assessment/mastery requirements in its rules.
- Mayer requested a contested case hearing. A Hearing Officer reviewed testimony (Board expert Dr. Fiore and Mayer) and documentary exhibits and issued proposed findings recommending licensure, finding Mayer met the prior (pre-amendment) residency definition and curricular rules.
- The Board reviewed the proposed decision, rejected key findings (concluding Mayer’s residency was not "at the educational institution" and Walden’s program lacked organized sequence, substantive breadth/depth, and adequate student assessment), and reinstated denial.
- The Thirteenth Judicial District Court affirmed the Board. On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court the core dispute centered on whether the Board properly rejected Hearing Officer findings under § 2-4-621(3), MCA (i.e., whether those findings were unsupported by competent substantial evidence or based on an incorrect interpretation of Board rules).
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it held the Hearing Officer misinterpreted the Board’s curricular standards and that the curricular finding that Walden satisfied Board rules was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mayer's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board improperly rejected Hearing Officer findings in violation of § 2-4-621(3), MCA | Board exceeded its authority by substituting its view for the Hearing Officer; Hearing Officer’s findings were supported by competent substantial evidence | Board properly reviewed the record and identified findings lacking competent substantial evidence or based on misinterpretation of its rules | Board acted within § 2-4-621(3): it may reject findings not based on competent substantial evidence or based on incorrect rule interpretation; affirmed |
| Whether Mayer satisfied the Board’s residency and curricular requirements for non-APA programs | Mayer testified he accumulated required residency hours "at Walden" and that his coursework met curricular requirements; no rule required expert testimony to rebut Board expert | Board’s expert showed Walden lacked continuous, on-site residency and an organized, graduate-level curricular sequence and adequate assessment; record unclear where residency occurred | Court declined to resolve residency ambiguity but affirmed denial on curricular grounds: Hearing Officer erred in discounting Board expert and finding curricular compliance; Mayer’s testimony alone was not competent substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostergren v. Dept. of Revenue, 319 Mont. 405, 85 P.3d 738 (standards for district court review of agency findings)
- Briese v. Mont. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Bd., 366 Mont. 148, 285 P.3d 550 (appellate review of district court affirmance of agency decisions)
- Knowles v. State ex rel. Lindeen, 353 Mont. 507, 222 P.3d 595 (deference to agency interpretation of its own rules)
- St. Personnel Div. v. Child Support Investigators, 308 Mont. 365, 43 P.3d 305 (rule interpretation is question of law)
- Brackman v. Bd. of Nursing, 258 Mont. 200, 851 P.2d 1055 (deference to hearing examiner on witness credibility)
- Mont. Trout Unlimited v. Mont. Dept. of Nat. Resources & Conserv., 331 Mont. 483, 133 P.3d 224 (noting challenges to rule validity were not raised)