IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION OR THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION OF AND/OR THE IMPOSITION OF PROBATION ON EASTWICK COLLEGE LPN-TO-RN BRIDGE PROGRAM APPROVED TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL OF REGISTERED NURSING IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued January 6, 2016—Decided July 13, 2016.
139 A.3d 1146 | 225 N.J. 533
Argued January 6, 2016—Decided July 13, 2016.
Robert A. Mintz argued the cause for appellant Eastwick College (McCarter & English and Schulman & Kissel, attorneys; Julian A. Schulman, on the briefs).
Olga E. Bradford, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey State Board of Nursing (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Justice PATTERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this appeal, the Court interprets
In 2013, the Board invoked
Eastwick appealed the Board‘s determination, challenging the methodology used by the Board to calculate the pass rate of the Bridge Program‘s graduates on the licensing examination. Eastwick contended that only students who graduated during a specific calendar year and took the licensing examination in that year should be included in that year‘s “graduating class.” Using that methodology, Eastwick argued that its second graduating class had a pass rate in excess of 75%, and that the Board improperly declined to accredit its nursing program. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the Board‘s determination denying accreditation.
Based on the plain language of
I.
In accordance with the Legislature‘s grant of authority in the Nurse Practice Act,
The Board also has established a process for the accreditation of schools of professional nursing.
A provisionally accredited nursing program may not be fully accredited until it meets the following requirements, set forth in
- The first class has graduated;
- Seventy-five percent of students from the first or second graduating class, who have taken the licensing examination, pass the examination the first time it is taken by the student; and
- A self-study report is submitted to the Board that shows the nursing program is in compliance with the requirements of
N.J.A.C. 13:37-1.4 through 1.11.
The regulation does not define the term “graduating class,” or otherwise specify how a nursing program‘s “graduating class” should be defined when the pass
This case arose from Eastwick‘s application for the accreditation of its Bridge Program, designed to meet the needs of licensed professional nurses aspiring to become registered nurses.1 Under the plan devised by Eastwick, a student would commence his or her studies on one of four alternative dates in a calendar year and be awarded an Associate Degree in Applied Science in Nursing at the conclusion of the program. Following graduation, the student would be eligible to take the NCLEX-RN, but would not be required by the school to do so.
On September 22, 2009, the Board granted provisional accreditation to Eastwick‘s Bridge Program. Eastwick admitted its first group of students shortly thereafter. Its first twenty graduates received their associate nursing degrees in January 2011. Nineteen of those twenty students, or 95%, passed the NCLEX-RN licensing examination. Eastwick graduated additional groups of students in April, July and October 2011. When the examination results of all of the students who graduated from the Bridge Program in 2011 and took the NCLEX-RN during that year were aggregated, the pass rate was 69.49%, short of the 75% required by
On February 27, 2012, the Board requested that Eastwick assess the deficiencies in its program and present an action plan to improve student performance. Eastwick evaluated factors including its admission criteria, its curriculum, and the time gap between the students’ course work and the NCLEX-RN examination. It prepared an action plan to improve its program, and submitted that plan to the Board in July 2012.
The ninety-seven students who graduated from the Bridge Program in January, April, July and October 2012, and took the NCLEX-RN examination for the first time that year, fared better than their predecessors; seventy-four, or 76.29%, of the 2012 graduates passed the examination. Eastwick reported those results to the Board. The Board, however, recalculated the NCLEX-RN pass rate for the Bridge Program‘s 2012 graduates, using a different methodology. In the statistics for the Bridge Program‘s “second graduating class,” the Board included the test results of twenty-four students who graduated from the Bridge Program in 2011, but did not take the NCLEX-RN examination until 2012. On that basis, the Board calculated a 71.07% pass rate—short of the required 75%—for that class.
On June 24, 2013, the Board entered a Provisional Order of Probation and Denial of Accreditation (Provisional Order), pursuant to
Eastwick submitted its request for modification or dismissal. It first argued that the twenty students who graduated from the Bridge Program in January 2011, whose pass rate on the NCLEX-RN examination was 95%, should be deemed to separately constitute a “graduating class.” In the alternative, Eastwick contended that if the term “graduating class” were defined based on a calendar year, the “class” should include all students who graduated and took the NCLEX-RN licensing examination for the first time during the year of graduation. Eastwick contended that under either methodology, its “first or second graduating class” achieved the required pass rate.
The Board rejected Eastwick‘s arguments. It voted to implement its Provisional Order as a Final Order of Probation and Denial of Accreditation (Final Order). The Board found Eastwick‘s method of calculating its “graduating class” contravened nationally accepted nursing education policies, and deemed it to be arbitrary, capricious and overly burdensome. In support of its construction of
Eastwick appealed the Board‘s Final Order. An Appellate Division panel affirmed the Board‘s determination, concluding that the Board‘s findings were supported by substantial credible evidence in the record.
We granted Eastwick‘s petition for certification. 220 N.J. 572, 108 A.3d 632 (2015).
II.
Eastwick contends that it met
The Board counters that the Court must defer to an agency‘s interpretation of its regulation. It construes the term “graduating class” in
III.
As a final determination of an administrative agency, the Board‘s Final Order is entitled to substantial deference. Univ. Cottage Club of Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dep‘t of Envtl. Prot., 191 N.J. 38, 48, 921 A.2d 1122 (2007) (citing In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656, 731 A.2d 35 (1999)). An appellate court will not reverse an agency‘s final decision unless the decision is “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,” the determination “violate[s] express or implied legislative policies,” the agency‘s action offends the United States Constitution or the State Constitution, or “the findings on which [the decision] was based were not supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record.” Ibid.; see also N.J. Soc‘y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. N.J. Dep‘t of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 385, 955 A.2d 886 (2008) (quoting In re Petitions for Rulemaking, 117 N.J. 311, 325, 566 A.2d 1154 (1989)).
An appellate court “defer[s] to an agency‘s interpretation of ... [a] regulation, within the sphere of [its] authority, unless the interpretation is ‘plainly unreasonable.‘” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187, 200, 42 A.3d 870 (2012) (second and third alteration in original) (quoting In re Election Law Enf‘t Comm‘n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254, 262, 989 A.2d 1254 (2010)); see also Acoli v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 229, 130 A.3d 1228 (2016). That principle derives “from the understanding that a state agency brings experience and specialized knowledge to its task of administering and regulating a legislative enactment within its field of expertise.” In re Election Law Enf‘t, 201 N.J. at 262. Accordingly, it is “a rare day when an agency cannot give a plausible interpretation for one of its own regulations.” U.S. Bank, N.A., supra, 210 N.J. at 203-04.
To apply the “plainly unreasonable” standard, we first consider the words of the statute, affording to those words “their ordinary and commonsense meaning.” In re Election Law Enf‘t, supra, 201 N.J. at 263 (quoting State v. Gelman, 195 N.J. 475, 482, 950 A.2d 879 (2008)). In that inquiry, “[w]e interpret a regulation in the same manner that we would interpret a statute.” U.S. Bank, N.A., supra, 210 N.J. at 199 (citing Bedford v. Riello, 195 N.J. 210, 221-22, 948 A.2d 1272 (2008)). The “paramount goal” is to determine the drafter‘s intent, and “[g]enerally, the drafter‘s intent is found in the actual language of the enactment.” Ibid. We do not “rearrange the wording of the regulation, if it is otherwise unambiguous, or engage in conjecture that will subvert its plain meaning.” Ibid.
Should the plain language analysis yield more than one plausible interpretation of the regulation, a reviewing court may consider extrinsic sources, including “the long-standing meaning ascribed to the language by the agency charged with its enforcement.” Bedford, supra, 195 N.J. at 222 (citing Malone v. Fender, 80 N.J. 129, 137-38, 402 A.2d 240 (1979)). If, however, the regulation‘s “language is clear, then the interpretative process will end without resort to extrinsic sources.” Ibid.; see also U.S. Bank, N.A., supra, 210 N.J. at 199 (quoting Bedford, supra, 195 N.J. at 222); In re Election Law Enf‘t, supra, 201 N.J. at 263 (citing DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492-93, 874 A.2d 1039 (2005)); Lozano v. Frank DeLuca Constr., 178 N.J. 513, 522, 842 A.2d 156 (2004). Our task is to “construe the regulation as written.” U.S. Bank, N.A., supra, 210 N.J. at 199.
Guided by those principles, we consider the meaning of the term “first or second graduating class” in
The regulation‘s terminology conveys two important concepts. First, in its “ordinary and commonsense” usage, the term “class” does not denote a cohort of students who have graduated from a professional school in different years, but have taken a licensing examination in the same calendar year. Instead, the term “class,” modified by “graduating,” describes a group of students who complete a program of studies and receive their diplomas or certificates in a given calendar year.2
Second,
The Board‘s interpretation of the term “first or second graduating class” is simply incongruent with the language of its regulation. The Board could have advised nursing programs in
Moreover, the Board‘s interpretation of
The language of
In short, notwithstanding our deferential review of the Board‘s construction of its regulation, we discern no foundation for its interpretation of the plain language in
Accordingly, when the Board calculated the NCLEX-RN examination pass rate for the “second graduating class” of Eastwick‘s Bridge Program, it improperly included the examination results of the twenty-four students who graduated from the Bridge Program during its first year, 2011, but did not take the examination until 2012. Based on the express terms of
Therefore, we find that the Board‘s September 27, 2013 Final Order denying accreditation and placing the Bridge Program on probation was unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record, and that the Board improperly denied accreditation in accordance with
We note that our
IV.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the Board for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Chief Justice RABNER, Justices ALBIN and SOLOMON, and Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned) join in Justice PATTERSON‘s opinion. Justices LaVECCHIA and FERNANDEZ-VINA did not participate.