See Minn. Stat. § 144.653, subd. 1 (2016) (identifying commissioner of health as the "exclusive state agency charged with the responsibility and duty of inspecting all facilities required to be licensed" under chapter 144); see alsoState ex rel. Hatch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co ., 609 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.App. 2000) (identifying section 144.653, subdivision 1, as providing "exclusive" authority to commissioner of health). And while a substantial violation of a patient's section 144.651 rights "shall be grounds for issuance of a correction order" by the commissioner of health, the issuance of such a correction order "shall not preclude, diminish, enlarge, or otherwise alter private action by or on behalf of a patient or resident to enforce any unreasonable violation" of that patient's rights under the grievance procedures articulated in section 144.651, subdivision 20. Minn. Stat. § 144.652, subd. 2 (2016) (discussing correction orders by commissioner of health); see also Minn. Stat. § 144.651, subd. 20 (elucidating grievance procedures for alleged violations of statute).
But the legislature has not stated that the commerce department's power is exclusive. See State ex rel. Hatch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 609 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.App. 2000), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000) (holding that "the statutes dealing with the authority of [the DOC] and its commissioner to regulate insurance do not explicitly provide that the commissioner's authority is exclusive.").
Even if respondent has shown reason to investigate, a CID is nevertheless invalid if the attorney general lacks authority to prosecute the suspected violations. See Minn. Twins P'ship, 592 N.W.2d at 856 ("Because as a matter of law the Attorney General is precluded from prosecuting the Twins on these [federal] antitrust allegations, the district court erred when it issued an order compelling compliance with the CIDs."); cf. State by Hatch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 609 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn.App. 2000) (holding that the attorney general may pursue alleged violations by insurance companies under section 8.31 because the commissioner's power to enforce state insurance laws is not exclusive), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).
A law may be enforced in a variety of ways, even absent a specific penalty provision. See State ex rel. Hatch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 609 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Minn.App. 2000) ("The attorney general may institute, conduct, and maintain all such actions and proceedings as he deems necessary for the enforcement of the laws of this state, the preservation of order, and the protection of legal right."), review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).