Adamson v. Oregon Health Authority

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 12-28-2017
  • Case #: A163901
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & James, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In ruling on an administrative rule challenge, a court must assess whether the agency had the authority to enact the form rule being disputed. If the rule is in accordance with the agency's basic authority, the court must determine whether that rule “departed from a legal standard expressed or implied in the particular law being administered, or contravened some other applicable statute.” Nay v. Dept. of Human Services, 360 Or 668, 680-81 (2016); Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 (1984).

Petitioner sought review of an administrative rule. Petitioner challenged OAR 410-141-3060 sections (2) and (3) of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Petitioner argued OHA lacked the authority to exclude certain populations from coordinated care organization, (CCO), enrollment. In ruling on an administrative rule challenge, a court must assess whether the agency had the authority to enact the form rule being disputed. If the rule is in accordance with the agency's basic authority, the court must determine whether that rule “departed from a legal standard expressed or implied in the particular law being administered, or contravened some other applicable statute.” Nay v. Dept. of Human Services, 360 Or 668, 680-81 (2016); Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Dept. of Human Res., 297 Or 562, 565 (1984). The Court of Appeals concluded that the legislature granted OHA unequivocal authority to enact the rules in question. OAR 410-141-3060(2) and (3) held valid.

Advanced Search