No. 14877 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1980 

MONTANA HEALTH SYSTEMS, AGENCY, INC., 

Petitioner, 

and 

MONTANA NURSING HOME ASSOC., 

Petitioner, 

VS . MONTANA BOARD OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

SCIENCES, 

Respondent, 

and 

MISSOULA GENERAL HOSPITAL, a 

non-profit corporation, 

Intervenor. 

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, 

Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Datsopoulos and MacDonald, Missoula, Montana 

Peter M. Meloy, Helena, Montana 

Eleanor Parker, Dept. of Health, Helena, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: October 25, 1980 

APR 2 - 19l 

Decided : 
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Missoula General Hospital (herein referred to as 

Hospital) appeals from an order of the Lewis and Clark 

County District Court denying its motion for change of 

venue. The sole issue presented is whether the trial court 

properly denied the motion for change of venue from Lewis 

and Clark County to Missoula County. 

On December 18, 1978, the Montana Board of Health and 

Environmental Sciences (herein referred to as the Board) 

issued findings of fact, conclusions and an order granting 

the Hospital a certificate of need, allowing the Hospital 

to initiate construction of a 80 bed intermediate care nursing 

home facility adjacent to the present hospital site in 

Missoula, Montana. Montana Health Systems Agency, Inc. 

(herein referred to as Montana Health) and the Montana Nursing 

Home Association (herein referred to as Association) appeared 

and opposed the issuance of the certificate of need at 

the administrative hearing level. Montana Health and the 

Association appealed to the Lewis and Clark County District 

Court seeking judicial review of the Board's order. 

On February 5, 1979, the trial court allowed the 

Hospital to intervene. On March 5, 1979, the Hospital filed 

a motion seeking a change of venue to Missoula County. On 

April 2, 1979, the trial court entered an order denying the 

motion for change of venue, determining that section 2-4- 

702(2)(a), MCA, was controlling. On April 20, 1979, the 

Hospital filed a motion to reconsider. On June 6, 1979, the 

trial court entered a memorandum and order denying the 

motion to reconsider, affirming the prior ruling that venue 

should remain in Lewis and Clark County. This appeal followed. 

-2- 
The Hospital does not contest the procedural course 

taken by Montana Health and the Association in appealing the 

Board's administrative decision to grant the certificate of 

need. However, the Hospital contends that as a private 

litigant doing business in Missoula County, it is entitled 

to a change of venue to Missoula County under section 25-2- 

201, MCA, and section 25-2-105, MCA; general statutory 

provisions relating to venue. The Hospital further contends 

that Missoula County is the proper county for judicial 

review because the certificate of need is operative only in 

Missoula County, where the nursing home is to be constructed. 

Montana Health and the Association contend that Lewis and 

Clark County is the proper county for judicial review under 

section 2-4-702, MCA, the venue provision of the Montana 

Administrative Procedure Act (herein referred to as MAPA). 

Section 2-4-702, MCA, is a statute providing for judicial 

review of the actions of any administrative agency of the 

state. Clearly, the Board is an administrative agency of 

the state, and judicial review of the Board's order granting 

the certificate of need is sought in the instant case. 

Section 2-4-702 (2) (a) provides that " [p] roceedings for 

review shall be instituted by filing a petition in district 

court within thirty days after service of the final decision 

of the agency . . . Except - as otherwise provided - by statute, 

the petition shall be filed in the district court for the 

county where the petitioner resides or has his principal 

place of business or where the agency maintains its principal 

office." (Emphasis added.) The language of section 2-4-702 

(2) (a), " [elxcept as otherwise provided by statute", would 

indicate that in specific instances, other statutes be 

looked to in order to determine venue. State, Consumer v. 

Mont. Dept. of Pub. Serv. Reg. (1979), Mont . - , 593 

-3- 
P.2d 34, 36, 36 St-Rep. 646, 649. To the extent of 

any inconsistency a more specific statute will control 

over a more general statute pertaining to the same subject 

matter. State, Consumer v. Mont. Dept. of Pub. Serv. Reg., 

supra, 593 P.2d at 36, 36 St.Rep. at 649; State v. Holt 

(1948), 121 Mont 459, 194 P.2d 651. 

This case involves the Board's granting of a certificate 

of need, and section35-301, et seq., MCA, provides the 

statutory framework relating to the issuance of certificates 

of need. Section 50-5-306, MCA, specifically provides a 

right to a hearing and appeal of a decision on an application 

for a certificate of need,: and contains a specific provision 

relating to venue. .Section 50-5-306 (4) provides that " [t] he 

final decision of the Board shall be considered the decision 

of the department for purposes of an appeal to district 

court. Any affected person may appeal this decision to the 

district court as provided in Title 2, chapter 4, part 7." 

Title 2, chapter 4;part 7, is that portion of the MAPA 

relating to judicial review of contested cases. It contains 

section 2-4-702(2)(a), the MAPA provision relating to venue. 

Section 50-5-306(4) specifically provides that the MAPA 

provision relating to venue applies. Accordingly, section 

2-4-702(2)(a) is the controlling statutory provision. The 

trial court properly determined that venue should remain in 

Lewis and Clark County. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: 

------------------ 

v---------------------------- 

Justices 

Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, 

did not participate.