GILPIN v STATE DEPT OF FAMILY SER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 91-043 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991 SARAH ELIZABETH GILPIN and GARY GILPIN, d/b/a BETTY ' S DAY CARE, Plaintiffs and Appellants, -vSTATE OF MONTANA; DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA; HANK HUDSON, Acting Director; PAT BERGSTROM, community Social Worker Supervisor; LORRI CLARK, Community Social Worker 11; MARSHA BRUNETT, Community Social Worker suoervisor: LINDA WALKER. Reaional Administrator; and JANE DOE, Social Worker, L - - ~ ~ -~ ~ - 2~ . i I~N ! r IF191 L"l3mitk F L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E M E C O U R ;;TI\TE - OF MONTANA Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Barbara E. Bell; Bell & Marra; Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Ann Gilkey; Department of Family Services; Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Filed: Clerk May 2, 1993 Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. The Gilpins initiated this suit for damages for temporary suspension of their day care license by the Department of Family Services. Following a hearing, the District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, dismissed the Gilpinsl claim. The Gilpins appeal. We affirm. The dispositive issue presented is whether the District Court erred in dismissing the Gilpinsl claim on the grounds that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the Gilpins had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them. The Gilpins assert that under 5 3-5-302(3), MCA, the District Court erred in concluding that it did not have jurisdiction. Section 3-5-302(3), MCA, provides: The district court has exclusive orisinal jurisdiction in all civil actions that might result in a judgment against the state for the payment of money. (Emphasis added. ) The Gilpins allege that because they have asked for monetary damages, 5 3-5-302(3), MCA, allows them to avoid the Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), Title 2, Chapter 4, MCA. The underlying issue is whether their license was erroneously or maliciously suspended. This issue is clearly covered by MAPA. The action taken by the Department in suspending the Gilpins' license is considered to be an Itadverse action" as defined in 11.2.201(c), ARM. (1) ... "Adverse actionv means: (d) an action by the department denying, suspending, reducing, revoking or failing to renew the license or the registration certificate of a provider. 11.2.203(1), ARM, provides: (1) A claimant or provider who is aggrieved by an adverse action of the department shall be afforded the opportunity for a hearing as provided in this chapter. 11.2.210, ARM, requires that an administrative review, either in person or by telephone, be conducted "with the purpose of resolving the case and avoiding an unnecessary hearing." Following the suspension of the day care license, Betty Gilpin requested a hearing regarding the Department's suspension of her day care license. The hearing examiner in the Department of Family Services' State Office appointed Boyce Fowler, a Department employee who had previously not been involved with the case, to conduct an administrative review of the grievance pursuant to 11.2.210, ARM. Fowler held a telephone conference with Betty Gilpin and discussed the scheduled administrative review. concluded that since her license had been They reinstated, an administrative review would not be helpful toward resolving the issue of suspension. Ms. Gilpin stated that she still wanted a hearing regarding the suspension. Mr. Fowler sent her a form which summarized the result of the administrative review and contained a request for a hearing. This form was never signed by the Gilpins, nor was it returned to the Department. a hearing was not scheduled nor held. Consequently, In lieu of proceeding with a hearing, the Gilpins filed the present claim in District Court. Section 2-4-702(l), MCA, provides that a person who has I1exhaustedall administrative remedies available within the aaencv and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review decision by the agency . . . There has not: been a final in this case regarding whether the suspension of the Gilpins' license was proper. Gilpins have not made a showing, pursuant to ยง In addition, the 2-4-701, MCA, that a review of a final agency decision by a hearings examiner would not provide an adequate remedy to their grievance which would justify an immediate review of the agency's action by the District Court. We hold that the District Court did not err in dismissing the Gilpinsl claim on the grounds the jurisdiction because the Gilpins had District 1 lacked failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them. Chief Justice Court Affirmed. June 11, 1991 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the foIlowing named: Barbara E. Bell Bell & Marra Ste. 201, 9 Third St. No. Great Falls, MT 594Ql Ann Gilkey, Legal Counsel Dept. of Family Services P.O. Box 8005 Helena, MT 59604 ED SMITH CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTmA
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
