No. DA 06-0059
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2006 MT 243N

_____________________________________
PATRICK KEITH HIRT, Respondent and Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, HEALTH CARE LICENSING BUREAU, CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE REVIEW TEAM, Respondent and Respondent.

_____________________________________

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Le wis and Clark, Cause No. CDV-2005-430, The Honorable Thomas C. Honzel, Presiding Judge.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Patrick Keith Hirt (pro se), Shelby, Montana For Respondent: Darcee L. Moe, Special Assistant Atto rney General, Department of Labor & Industry, Helena, Montana

_____________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: September 13, 2006 Decided: September 26, 2006 Filed:

____________________________________________ ClerkJustice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursua nt to Section I, Para graph 3(d)( v ), M onta n a S u prem e Court 1996 Inter n al Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the followi ng m e m o randum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court caus e number and disp osition s h all be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and
Montana R e ports. ¶2 Patrick Keith Hirt (Hirt) appeals from the denial of his petition for judicial review of an administrative agency’s action by the First Judicial Di strict Court, Le w i s and Clark County. We affirm. ¶3 A jury in Ravalli County convicted Hirt of sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. The District Court ordered that Hirt unde rgo a sex offender evaluation a nd t h at the Departm e nt of Corre ctions conduct a pre s en tence investigation. Michael English, LCSW, a clinical member of the Montan a Sex Offender Treatment Association, perform ed the sex offender eval uation. Eng lish adm i nistered psychological testing to Hirt as part of that evaluati on. Paul Moom aw, P h .D., a clinical psychologist, interpreted these tests for English. At Hirt’s request , the court also appoin ted Michael Scolatti, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, to conduct a partial psycho-sexual ev a l uation of Hirt. ¶4 The District Court held a sentencing h earing at which Englis h testified. Dr. Scolatti did not testify at the hearing, bu t several witnesses referred to Scolatti’s evaluation report. The Distri ct Court sente n ced Hirt to the Montana State Prison for a

2term of not less than t e n years and, pursua n t to § 46-23-509(3)(c), MCA, desi gnated Hirt a Level III offender as a se xually violent predator. ¶5 Hirt filed complaints alleging unprofessi onal conduct against Moomaw, Scolatt i , and English with the Correctional Health Ca re Review Team (CHCRT) of the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI). The Legislature enacte d the CHCR T process to “review complaints f iled by an inmate against a licensed or certified provider of health care or rehabilitative services for services that were provided to the person while the
person was detained or confine d in a county detention center or incarcerated under legal custody of the de partment of corre cti ons.” Section 37-1-331(1), MCA. ¶6 Pursua nt to § 37- 1-331(1), MC A , Hirt fi led his complaint with the CHCRT fo r review. Two different review teams considered Hirt’s complaints a nd determ ined t h at no reason existed to believe that Moomaw , Scolatti, or English had committed
unpr ofessional conduct. As a result, neither review team referred th e complaints to the
Boar d of Psychol ogi sts or to the Boar d of Social Work Examiners and Professional Counselors. The two review teams sent Hirt written notice of their decisions. ¶7 Hirt filed a petition for judicial review. The District Court affirmed the review teams’ decisions that Hirt’s co mplaints established no reason to believe that Dr. Moomaw, Dr. Scolatti, or Englis h violated the Montana Uniform Professional Licensing and Regulation Pr ocedures. The District Court denied Hirt’s petition for judicial review. Hirt appeals. ¶8 Hirt argues on a p peal that the two re view team s failed to c o nduct fact finding related to his complaints. He further argues that he was not a fforded the chance to appear

3before t h e review team s. Finally, he cont e nds t h at t h e CH CR T review process operates to pr ohi bit “m inim um standards of review of claims.” DOLI counters that the review teams followed the claim review pr ocess out lined by the statute. ¶9 We review an administrative agency’s c oncl u sions of l a w to dete rm ine whet her the conclus i ons are correct. Dupuis v. Boar d of Trustees , 2006 M T 3, ¶ 8, 330 M o nt. 232, ¶ 8, 128 P.3d 1010, ¶ 8. It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant t o our Order o f Febr uary 11, 2003, a m ending S ection I.3 of our 1996 Intern al O p erating R u l e s providi n g for m e m o randum opi nions. It is m a nifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that Hirt’s appeal lacks merit. Settled Mo ntana law clearly controls the legal issues presented a nd t h e District Court corr ectly interpreted thes e legal issu es. ¶10 Affirmed.

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S
We Conc ur: /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JIM RICE

4