Case Information
*1 11/16/2021
DA 21-0149 Case Number: DA 21-0149 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2021 MT 298N MARK S. IBSEN, M.D., FILED Petitioner and Appellant, v. NOV 1 6 2021 Bowen Greenwood MONTANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana Respondent and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. DDV-2016-283 Honorable Christopher D. Abbott, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: John P. Flannery, II, Campbell Flannery, Leesburg, Virginia Brent Flowers, Beebe & Flowers, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Graden Marcelle, Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: October 20, 2021 Decided: November 16, 2021 Filed: Clerk *2
Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion, shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Dr. Mark Ibsen appeals the Memorandurn and Order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, dismissing with prejudice Ibsen's petition for judicial review of the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners' (the Board) Amended Final Order placing Ibsen's medical license on probationary status for 180 days. The dispositive issue is whether the District Court erred by dismissing Ibsen's petition for judicial review as untimely. We affirm.
This case stems from a 2013 contested disciplinary action culminating in the Board's 2016 order indefinitely suspending Ibsen's license. In 2018, Ibsen successfully petitioned the District Court for judicial review, citing procedural errors. After the matter was reinanded to the Board, it assigned a new hearing exaininer to review the case. ¶4 On March 19, 2020, Ibsen inoved the District Court for a writ of mandamus, alleging inaction by the hearing examiner and the Board in resolving his case. On March 31, 2020, the hearing examiner concluded his review of the administrative record and issued an order transferring jurisdiction to the Board for further proceedings. The Board issued an Ainended Final Order on October 8, 2020, placing Ibsen's license on probationary status
2 *3 f o r 180 d a y s . O n N ov e m b e r 4 , 2020 , I b s e n f il e d a n e m e r g e n c y r no ti on t o s t a y t h e B o a r d ' s O r d e r . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t g r a n t e d t h e s t a y on N ov e m b e r 5 , 2020 .
O n D ece m b e r 11 , 2020 , t h e B o a r d f il e d a r no ti on t o d i s r n i ss I b s e n ' s m a nd a m u s ac ti on a nd t o li f t t h e s t a y , a ss e r ti ng t h a t t h e B o a r d a l r ea dy h a d t a k e n t h e ac ti on t h a t I b s e n ' s m a nd a m u s m o ti on s ough t t o c o m p e l . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t h ea r d o r a l a r gu r n e n t on D ece m b e r 18 , 2020 . O n J a nu a r y 4 , 2021 , it d e n i e d I b s e n ' s m a nd a m u s m o ti on a s " i n a pp r op r i a t e b eca u s e it s ee k s t o undo ac ti on a l r ea dy t a k e n by t h e B o a r d . " N o ti ng t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s i s a p p e a l a b l e t o t h i s C o u r t , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t l e f t t h e s t a y o f t h e B o a r d ' s O r d e r i n p l ace f o r t h i r t y d a y s " t o p e rr n it I b s e n t o pu r s u e a ny a dd iti on a l r e li e f t h a t h e b e li e v e s t o b e a pp r op r i a t e . " T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t e n t e r e d j udg r n e n t on J a nu a r y 12 , 2021 . T h e B o a r d g a v e I b s e n no ti ce o f e n t r y o f j udg m e n t on J a nu a r y 14 , 2021 . I b s e n d i d no t a pp ea l . ¶ 6 I b s e n f il e d a p e titi on f o r j ud i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e B o a r d ' s O r d e r t w o w ee k s l a t e r . O n M a r c h 10 , 2021 , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t d i s m i ss e d t h e p e titi on w it h p r e j ud i ce . I t h e l d t h a t I b s e n ' s p e titi on w a s un ti m e l y a nd t h a t n e it h e r t h e r n a nd a r nu s ac ti on no r t h e o r d e r t o s t a y t o ll e d t h e ti m e f o r it s f ili ng . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t r e j ec t e d I b s e n ' s a r gu m e n t f o r e qu it a b l e t o lli ng b eca u s e I b s e n f a il e d t o m a k e a r ea s on a b l e e ff o r t t o pu r s u e h i s l e g a l r i gh t s w h e n h e c ho s e t o f o r e go j ud i c i a l r e v i e w i n li e u o f a m a nd a m u s m o ti on . " T o p e r m it e qu it a b l e t o lli ng i n t h i s i n s t a n ce , " t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t e xp l a i n e d , " w ou l d b e t o e x t e nd t h e do c t r i n e t o ` g a r d e n v a r i e t y c l a i m [ s ] o f e x c u s a b l e n e g l ec t . ' " S ee W e i do w v . U n i n s u r e d E r np ' r s ' F u n d , 2010 M T 292 , ¶ 28 , 359 M on t . 77 , 246 P . 3d 704 .
*4 ¶7 On appeal, Ibsen argues that his petition for review was tiinely because he filed it within the thirty-day period of the District Court's January stay order, which the court granted to allow Ibsen to "pursue any additional relief that he believe[d] to be appropriate." The Board contends that Ibsen's petition for review was correctly denied because Ibsen failed to satisfy equitable tolling requirements or otherwise explain his "inexplicable" decision to not pursue judicial review within thirty days of the Board's October 2020 decision. ¶8 We review de novo whether the factual circumstances warrant the grant of an equitable exception to a statutory filing deadline. Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co., 2012 MT 184, ¶ 13, 366 Mont. 78, 285 P.3d 494 (citing BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 2012 MT 143, ¶ 16, 365 Mont. 304, 281 P.3d 203). ¶9 Under § 2-4-702(1)(a), MCA, a person who is aggrieved by a final written decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the agency's decision. The person must file a petition for review in the district court within thirty days after service of the final written decision of the agency. Section 2-4-702(2)(a), MCA. Failure to file a timely petition warrants dismissal of the petition. See Shoemaker v. Denke, 2004 MT 11, ¶ 32, 319 Mont. 238, 84 P.3d 4. ¶10 We have einphasized " ' the importance of applying procedural bars regularly and consistently.' " Cringle, ¶ 21 (quoting Weidow, ¶ 28). Procedural tiine bars, such as the thirty-day filing deadline in § 2-4-702(1)(a), MCA, nonetheless are subject to constitutional review and equitable principles. Cringle, ¶¶ 18, 21. We observed in Cringle that, although
4 *5 " e qu it a b l e p r i n c i p l e s w ill i n s o m e ca s e s e x c u s e s t r i c t c o r np li a n ce w it h a ca t e go r i ca l ti m e b a r , ' good ca u s e ' f o r s u c h r e li e f n ece ss a r il y r e qu i r e s a ' l e g a ll y s u ff i c i e n t r ea s on . ' " C r i ng l e , ¶ 21 ( quo ti ng C it y o f H e l e n a v . R o a n , 2010 M T 29 , ¶ 13 , 355 M on t . 172 , 226 P . 3d 601 ) .
A s t a t u t e o f li m it a ti on s m a y b e t o ll e d w h e n a p l a i n ti ff r ea s on a b l y a nd i n good f a it h pu r s u e s on e o f s e v e r a l po ss i b l e l e g a l r e m e d i e s a nd r n ee t s t h r ee c r it e r i a : ( 1 ) ti m e l y no ti ce t o t h e d e f e nd a n t w it h i n t h e a pp li ca b l e s t a t u t e o f li r n it a ti on s i n f ili ng t h e f i r s t c l a i m ; ( 2 ) l ac k o f p r e j ud i ce t o t h e d e f e nd a n t i n g a t h e r i ng e v i d e n ce t o d e f e nd a g a i n s t t h e s ec ond c l a i m ; a nd ( 3 ) good f a it h a nd r ea s on a b l e c ondu c t by t h e p l a i n ti ff i n f ili ng t h e s ec ond c l a i m .
L o zea u v . G E I C O I nd e m . C o ., 2009 M T 136 , ¶ 14 , 350 M on t . 320 , 207 P . 3d 316 . ¶ 11 T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t h e l d t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n a pp li ca b l e t o I b s e n ' s c l a i m s , a nd w e f i nd no f a u lt w it h it s l e g a l a n a l y s i s . W h e n it d e n i e d I b s e n ' s m a nd a m u s p e titi on on J a nu a r y 4 , t h e c ou r t r i gh tl y ob s e r v e d t h a t " I b s e n ' s c o m p l a i n t i s no l ong e r w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d a c t e d , bu t r a t h e r ho w t h e B o a r d ac t e d , " w h i c h i s no t a p r op e r s ub j ec t f o r m a nd a m u s . S ee B o e h m v . P a r k C t y ., 2018 M T 165 , ¶ 13 , 392 M on t . 72 , 421 P . 3d 789 ( " [ M ] a nd a r nu s i s no t a v a il a b l e t o ca u s e t h e r e s pond e n t t o undo ac ti on a l r ea dy t a k e n , o r t o c o rr ec t o r r e v i s e s u c h ac ti on , ho w e v e r e rr on e ou s it m a y h a v e b ee n . " ) ( quo t a ti on o m itt e d ) ; B ea s l e y v . F l a t h ea d C l y . B d . o f A d j u s t m e n t s , 2 0 0 9 M T 1 20 , ¶ 18 , 3 50 M on t . 17 1 , 2 05 P . 3d 8 12 ( " A w r it o f m a nd a t e ca nno t b e u s e d t o c o m p e l a d i s c r e ti o n a r y ac t . " ) ( c it a ti on o m itt e d ) . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t r e m a r k e d t h a t I b s e n h a d a n obv i ou s a d e qu a t e a nd s p ee dy r e m e dy : a p e titi on f o r j ud i c i a l r e v i e w . " T h a t I b s e n h a s f a il e d t o a v a il h i m s e l f o f t h a t r e m e dy do e s no t m ea n i t w a s un a v a il a b l e t o h i m . " W h e n i t d e n i e d m a nd a m u s , t h e c ou r t a ll o w e d t h e s t a y t o r e r n a i n i n e ff ec t f o r t h i r t y d a y s t o g i v e I b s e n t h e oppo r t un it y f o r a pp ea l . T h i s d i d no t h i ng t o t o ll *6 t h e li m it a ti on p e r i od f o r I b s e n ' s p e titi on . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t ' s s t a y on t h e e x ec u ti on o f t h e f i n a l o r d e r p e nd i ng t h e m a nd a m u s p r o cee d i ng d i d no t a lt e r it s s t a t u s a s a f i n a l o r d e r f o r pu r po s e s o f s ee k i ng j ud i c i a l r e v i e w . S ee B . Y . O . B ., I n c . v . S t a t e , 2021 M T 191 , ¶ 19 , 405 M on t . 88 , 493 P . 3d 318 ( d i s t r i c t c ou r t o r d e r s s t a y i ng f i n a l a g e n c y o r d e r t e r m i n a ti ng a l c oho li c b e v e r a g e fr a n c h i s e a g r ee m e n t d i d no t a ff ec t it s s t a t u s a s a f i n a l d ec i s i on o f t h e a g e n c y ) . I n s t ea d , I b s e n c ou l d h a v e s ough t a s t a y und e r § 2 - 4 - 703 ( 3 ) , M C A , upon t h e f ili ng o f h i s j ud i c i a l r e v i e w p e titi on . ¶ 12 C o n s i s t e n t a n d r e gu l a r a p p li ca t i o n o f a s t a t u t o r y t i m e b a r i s p a r t i c u l a r l y w a r r a n t e d w h e n — l i k e t h e M on t a n a A d m i n i s t r a ti v e P r o ce du r e A c t ' s ( M A P A ) — it i s no t qu a li f i e d by a good ca u s e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l ec t s t a nd a r d . I n s u c h ca s e s , t h e p a r t y m u s t d e m on s t r a t e a " r ea s on a b l e e ff o r t t o pu r s u e on e ' s l e g a l r i gh t s . " C r i ng l e , ¶ 21 . S ee a l s o B illi ng s Y e ll o w C a b , LL C v . S t a t e o f M on t a n a , 2014 M T 275 , TT 13 - 14 , 376 M on t . 463 , 335 P . 3d 1223 ( c iti ng C r i ng l e a nd a pp l y i ng M A P A ' s t h i r t y - d a y li m it a ti on s p e r i od b eca u s e p e titi on e r d i d no t d e m on s t r a t e a " l e g a ll y s u ff i c i e n t r ea s on " f o r f ili n g a s ec ond a d r n i n i s t r a t i v e a pp li ca ti on i n s t ea d o f s ee k i ng j ud i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e f i r s t d e n i a l ) . A s t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t r ea s on e d , m a nd a m u s p l a i n l y w a s no t on e o f s e v e r a l " po ss i b l e r e m e d [ i e s j " f o r I b s e n ' s c h a ll e ng e t o t h e B o a r d ' s d ec i s i on . T h e r e i s bu t a s i ng l e a v e nu e t o c h a ll e ng e t h e f i n a l d ec i s i on o f a n a d m i n i s t r a ti v e a g e n c y : a p e titi on f o r j ud i c i a l r e v i e w . S ec ti on 2 - 4 - 702 ( 1 ) , M C A . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t d e s c r i b e d I b s e n ' s f a il u r e t o f il e s u c h a p e titi on a s " i n e xp li ca b l e . " I b s e n ' s c ho i ce i s s i r n il a r t o t h e p e titi on e r ' s i n B illi ng s Y e ll o w C a b a nd i n c on t r a s t t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n ce s und e r w h i c h w e h a v e p e r m itt e d e qu it a b l e t o lli ng o f a ca t e go r i ca l ti m e b a r . *7 See, e.g., Lozeau, ¶¶ 17-18 (applying equitable tolling for action reasonably filed in tribal court against tribal mernber); Weidow, ¶ 30 (applying equitable tolling for a nine-day filing delay after concluding that the controlling statute was ambiguous as to what constituted the final "determination by the department"); Schoof v. Nesbit, 2014 MT 6, ¶ 38, 373 Mont. 226, 316 P.3d 831 (applying equitable tolling where facts giving rise to open meeting violation were allegedly concealed, "coupled with the overriding constitutional importance of transparency in local government"). ¶13 Contrary to Ibsen's argument, there was nothing in the District Court's mandamus order or in its continuation of the stay that led him to sleep on his rights for seeking judicial review. MAPA's statutory tirne bar should not lightly be ignored, and Ibsen cannot establish that his mandamus motion was one of several possible legal remedies or that he had a legally sufficient reason for failing timely to pursue judicial review. ¶14 Ibsen also asserts that the Board's failure to issue its Order within 90 days of the second hearing exarniner's decision, as required by § 2-4-623, MCA, rendered the Order "void and unenforceable." Ibsen cites no authority or substantive analysis in support of this assertion. This Court has repeatedly held that it is not our function "to conduct legal research on a party's behalf or to develop a legal analysis to support the party's position." Cmty. Ass 'n for N. Shore Conserv., Inc. v. Flathead Cty., 2019 MT 147, 1124, 396 Mont. 194, 445 P.3d 1195 (citing Johansen v. Dep't of Nat. Res. & Conserv., 1998 MT 51, ¶ 24, 288 Mont. 39, 955 P.2d 653). We decline to consider this argument. Ibsen raises several additional contentions, and we have considered them. Having
7 *8 r e v i e w e d t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t ' s r ea s on e d O r d e r a nd t h e p a r ti e s ' a r gu r n e n t s on a pp ea l , w e f i nd no e rr o r i n t h e c ou r t ' s r u li ng s . ¶ 15 W e h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t o d ec i d e t h i s ca s e pu r s u a n t t o S ec ti on I , P a r a g r a ph 3 ( c ) o f ou r I n t e r n a l O p e r a ti ng R u l e s , w h i c h p r ov i d e s f o r m e m o r a ndu m op i n i on s . T h i s a pp ea l p r e s e n t s no c on s tit u ti on a l i ss u e s , no i ss u e s o f f i r s t i r np r e ss i on , a nd do e s no t e s t a b li s h n e w p r ece d e n t o r r nod i f y e x i s ti ng p r ece d e n t . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t d i d no t e rr w h e n it d i s m i ss e d w it h p r e j ud i ce I b s e n ' s p e titi on f o r j ud i c i a l r e v i e w a s un ti m e l y . W e a ff i r m t h e c ou r t ' s M a r c h 1 0 , 2 02 1 M e m o r a ndu m a n d O r d e r o n M o ti o n s .
J u s ti ce / W e C on c u r : C h i e f J u s ti ce J u s ti ce s *9 J u s ti ce J a m e s J e r e m i a h S h ea , d i ss e n ti ng . ¶ 16 I d i ss e n t fr o m t h e C ou r t ' s O p i n i on . O n t h e f ac t s o f t h i s ca s e , I w ou l d ho l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t e rr e d i n d ec li n i ng t o a pp l y e qu it a b l e t o lli ng t o a ll o w c on s i d e r a ti on o f I b s e n ' s p e titi on f o r j ud i c i a l r e v i e w . ¶ 17 I n li m it e d c i r c u m s t a n ce s , e qu it a b l e t o lli ng a ll o w s a n ac ti on t o c on ti nu e d e s p it e non c o m p li a n ce w it h s t a t u t o r y f ili ng d ea d li n e s . S c hoo f , ¶ 33 . T h i s C ou r t h a s p r e v i ou s l y h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f li m it a ti on s m a y b e t o ll e d w h e n a p l a i n ti ff r ea s on a b l y a nd i n good f a i t h p u r s u e s o n e o f s e v e r a l p o ss i b l e l e g a l r e m e d i e s a n d t h e p l a i n ti ff : ( 1 ) p r ov i d e s ti m e l y no ti ce t o t h e d e f e nd a n t w it h i n t h e a pp li ca b l e s t a t u t e o f li m it a ti on s i n f ili ng t h e f i r s t c l a i m ; ( 2 ) s ho w s t h e r e w a s no p r e j ud i ce t o t h e d e f e nd a n t i n g a t h e r i ng e v i d e n ce t o d e f e nd a g a i n s t t h e s ec ond c l a i m ; a nd ( 3 ) d e m on s t r a t e s good f a it h a nd r ea s on a b l e c ondu c t i n f ili ng t h e s ec ond c l a i r n . L o zea u , ¶ 14 . W e h a v e a l s o h e l d t h a t w h il e t h i s t h r ee - p a r t t e s t i s a pp r op r i a t e " i n ca s e s i nvo l v i ng a lt e r n a t e l e g a l r e r n e d i e s , t h e r a ti on a l e b e h i nd t h e do c t r i n e o f e qu it a b l e t o l l i ng s e r v e s b r o a d e r pu r po s e s t h a n r n e r e l y t ho s e e r nbod i e d by t h i s t e s t . T h e po li c y b e h i nd t h e do c t r i n e o f e qu it a b l e t o lli ng i s . . . t o a vo i d f o rf e it u r e s a nd a ll o w good f a it h liti g a n t s t h e i r d a y i n c ou r t . " S c ho o l; ¶ 34 ( i n t e r n a l quo t a ti on s o m itt e d ) . P u t s i m p l y , a p l a i n ti ff s hou l d no t b e d e p r i v e d o f h i s o r h e r c l a i m s " w h e n s u c h a n a pp r o ac h w o u l d s e r v e no po li c y pu r po s e . " W e i do w , ¶ 28 . ¶ 18 A pp l y i ng t h e e qu it a b l e t o lli ng c r it e r i a a nd t h e b r o a d e r r a ti o n a l e f o r t h e e qu it a b l e t o lli ng do c t r i n e t o t h e f ac t s o f t h i s ca s e l ea d s m e t o c on c l ud e t h a t t h e 30 - d a y ti m e li m it s hou l d b e e q u it a b l y t o ll e d . F i r s t , t h e r e i s no qu e s ti on t h a t t h e B o a r d w a s no ti f i e d t i m e l y w it h i n t h e s t a t u t e o f li m it a ti on s t h a t I b s e n w a s c h a ll e ng i ng it s O r d e r b eca u s e , w it h i n t h a t *10 time frame, Ibsen sought and obtained an order from the District Court staying enforcement of the Board's Order. Second, the Board does not contend that its ability to gather evidence in defense of its Order was prejudiced, nor does such a contention find support in the record. Third, Ibsen reasonably and in good faith filed his petition for judicial review upon being advised that the District Court was lifting the stay. ¶19 The District Court declined to apply equitable tolling to permit Ibsen's untimely petition for judicial review because it determined, as a threshold rnatter, that Ibsen's decision to pursue the writ of rnandamus was unreasonable as it was "foreclosed by black-letter law." That rnay have been true in the final analysis, but it does not alter the fact that while pursuing his ultimately unsuccessful petition for mandamus, the Board's Order was stayed and the stay remained in effect until resolution of Ibsen's mandamus petition, at which point Ibsen prornptly petitioned for judicial review of the Board's Order. As the District Court correctly noted, its order staying enforcement "prevented the Board's Amended Final Order from taking effect." Ibsen petitioned for judicial review within 30 days of the Order "taking effect." The circumstances of this case do not present a "garden variety claim of excusable neglect," nor is any policy purpose served by denying Ibsen judicial review of the Board's Order. Weidow, ¶ 28. ¶20 Considering, as the District Court described, the "long and nettlesome procedural history" surrounding this case, I would apply equitable tolling to Ibsen's petition for judicial review and give Ibsen his day in court.
10 *11 J u s ti ce I ng r i d G u s t a f s on j o i n s i n t h e D i ss e n t o f J u s ti ce S h ea . J u s ti