Department of Human Resources v. UHS of the Colony, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Boulware v. Nevada, Department of Human Resources

    960 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 15 times
    Applying to Section 1983

    While it is true that Boulware's proposed MRI facility did not fall within the ten categories of facilities listed in section 439A.015 to which the CON procedures applied, the law was by no means clear that those ten examples constituted an exclusive list. Indeed, while Boulware's case was pending, the Nevada Supreme Court held that "the failure to specifically enumerate [a mobile MRI] facility in NRS 439A.015 (1983) does not prevent its inclusion as a health facility." Department of Human Resources v. UHS of the Colony, 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 321 (1987). The 1985 Nevada State Health Plan concluded that the introduction of MRI units in Nevada should be discouraged because the technology was still in its infancy, but it noted that "controlling the diffusion of MRI technology in Nevada will be difficult due to the current statutory exemption from CON review for the acquisition of major medical equipment not `owned by or located in a health facility.'"

  2. Morgan v. Committee on Benefits

    894 P.2d 378 (Nev. 1995)

    Although certain actions affecting rates and coverage may rise to the level of regulation-making, as they did in Southwest Gas, we conclude that the Committee's actions at issue here do not constitute regulation-making. "`An administrative construction that is within the language of the statute will not readily be disturbed by the courts.'" State Gaming Comm'n v. GNLV Corp., 108 Nev. 456, 458, 834 P.2d 411, 413 (1992) (quoting Dep't Human Res. v. UHS of The Colony, 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 321 (1987)). NRS 287.043(4) charges the Committee to "provide [policies of life, accident or health insurance] through a plan of self-insurance for the benefit of all eligible public officers, employees and retired employees who participate in the state's program."

  3. State, State Environmental Commission v. John Lawrence Nevada

    834 P.2d 408 (Nev. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    The district court's conclusion was contrary to the position of DEP personnel, who testified that subsection three permittees are not exempted from the fugitive dust prohibition of the regulation. John Lawrence admits that "[a]n administrative construction that is within the language of the statute will not be readily disturbed by the courts" (citing Department of Human Resources v. UHS of the Colony, Inc., 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 321 (1987)). We are convinced that the district court erred in rejecting the DEP's interpretation of the regulation, which we perceive to be consistent with its plain meaning.

  4. State v. GNLV Corp.

    108 Nev. 456 (Nev. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that an agency need not promulgate a regulation in order to enforce a statute's plain meaning

    "An administrative construction that is within the language of the statute will not readily be disturbed by the courts." Dep't of Human Res. v. UHS of The Colony, Inc., 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 321 (1987). The Commission did not engage in ad hoc rule-making because the Commission did not expand the scope of the statute, but merely enforced the requirements of NRS 463.3715(2) in accordance with the plain dictates of the statute.

  5. State, Dep't of Wildlife v. Bentz

    792 P.2d 28 (Nev. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    The court should give great weight to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Department of Human Resources v. UHS of the Colony, Inc., 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 320 (1987). The second issue presented is whether the court erred in holding that GCR 173 is contrary to NRS 501.110 because it gives protected status to those reptiles classified as unprotected.

  6. Westergard v. Barnes

    784 P.2d 944 (Nev. 1989)   Cited 3 times
    Reviewing a petition for judicial review from an EMC decision and determining the EMC did not adequately address the issues before it

    An administrative construction of the language of a statute will not be readily disturbed by the courts. Department of Human Resources v. UHS of the Colony, Inc., 103 Nev. 208, 211, 735 P.2d 319, 321 (1987). We conclude that the Department did not act improperly when it determined that Garteiz could be reinstated without making him participate in the competitive process.

  7. Boulware v. State, Dep't Human Resources

    103 Nev. 218 (Nev. 1987)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that an entity "may not act outside the meaning and intent of [its] enabling statute"

    We previously held that a party is not required to exhaust the certificate of need application process before it can seek a judicial determination that it is exempt from CON review. See Dep't Human Res. v. UHS Of The Colony, 103 Nev. 208, 735 P.2d 319 (1987). Furthermore, we hold that NRS Chapter 439A (1983) was not intended to require private physicians to submit to CON review.