No. 85-313 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1986 

IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF 

LICENSURE OF RUDOLPH E. WHITE. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, 

The Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF REC0R.D: 

For Appellant: 

Geoffrey L. Brazier, Dept. of Commerce, Helena, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Michael- P. Sand, Bozeman, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: Nov. 6, 1985 

Decided: January 23, 1986 

Filed: JAN 2 13 1986 

m. 

f,f# 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

The Board of Nursi.ng appeals from a judgment of the 

District Court, First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark 

County which reversed the decision of the Roa.rd of Nursing 

and ordered the Board to license the petitioner. We affirm. 

The Board of Nursing raises four issues on appeal. 1) 

Should Rudolph E. White be licensed as a practical nurse in 

Montana? 2) Did the District Court disregard uncontroverted 

credible and material evidence? 3) Did the Dj-strict Court 

substitute its opinion for that of the agency as to the 

weight of the evidence? 4) Did the District Court 

erroneously construe the applicable statutes? We will treat 

all these issues together. 

Rudolph E. White applied to the Board of Nursing of 

Montana for a practical nurse license by endorsement pursuant 

to section 37-8-417, MCA. He was denied that license. He 

requested the Board review the denial of his license. The 

Board considered the denial of his license at its meeting and 

again denied the license. White requested administrative 

review of the Board's decision. A hearing was held, 

witnesses were heard and exhibits were introduced. The 

hearing examiner concluded that the Board should issue the 

license. The matter was referred back to the Board of 

Nursing which held another hearing. The Board reversed the 

decision of the hearing examiner and denied the license. 

White petitioned for judicial review. The District Court 

adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the 

hearing examiner and ordered the Boarc? to license White. 
The Board appeals. 

After White graduated from high school in New York, he 

served as an army medic for six years. After being honorably 

discharged from the service, he worked as a laboratory 

technician in cancer research for eight years. He also 

attended medical assistant's school for a yea-r. 

White attended Onondaga Community College in Syracuse 

from the spring semester of 1975 through fall semester 1977 

where he earned 57 credits of the required 62 credits toward 

a registered nurse degree. New York allows a candidate for a 

registered nurse degree to take the licensed practical nurse 

examination after completion of three semesters of the 

registered nurse program if their grades are satisfactory. 

In 1980, White successfully passed the National Standardized 

Practical Nursing Examination and was licensed as a practical 

nurse in New York. White worked as a. practical nurse in New 

York until 1.982 when he came to Montana. His New York 

license is still valid. 

White applied for a license by endorsement in Montana 

under section 37-8-41-7, MCA. That section states: 

The board may issue a license to practice as a 

licensed practical nurse, without examination, to 

an applicant who has been licensed or registered as 

a licensed practical nurse or person entitled to 

perform like services under a different title under 

the laws of another state or territory if, in the 

opinion of the board, the applicant meets the 

requirements for practical nurses in this state. 

The requirements for practical nurses in this state are set 

out in section 37-8-415, MCA. 

An applicant for a license to practice as a 

licensed practical nurse shall submit to the board 

written evidence, verified by oath, that the 

applicant: 

(1) has successfully completed at least an 

apprcved 4-year high school course of study or the 
equivalent as determined by the office of the 

superintendent of public instruction; 

(2) is a graduate of an approved practical nursing 

education program that is authorized to prepare 

persons for licensure as practical nurses; and 

(3) meets other qualification requirements the 

board prescribes in its rules. 

The Board argues that White cannot be licensed by 

endorsement in Montana, nor will the Board allow him to take 

the Montana examination until he graduates from an approved 

practical nursing education program. They argue he did not 

graduate since he holds no diploma. They also argue that the 

school White went to while it. is an approved school for 

registered nurses, is not an approved school for licensed 

practical nurses. Thus they argue White should enroll in a 

licensed practical nurse program in Montana and graduate 

before he can ta.ke the Montana exam. 

White argues he completed the equivalent of graduation 

from a school of practical nursing. Under New York law, an 

applicant may take the examination if he graduates from a 

practical nursing program or if he completes the equivalent 

thereof. White qualified under the equivalent preparation 

section of New York law and passed the standardized, 

nationalized examination, which is used both in New York and 

in Montana.. His score was sufficient to constitute passing 

in both New York and Montana. He argues that by refusing him 

a license in Montana, the Board is attempting to disapprove 

of the educational standards of New York. 

We first look to the standa.rd of review of agency 

decisions under MAPA. Section 2-4-704, MCA states, "The 

[district] court may reverse or modify the decision if 

substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced 

because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, 
or decisions are: . . . (f) arbitrary or capricious or 

characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted 

exercise of discretion." In this case, the District Court 

reversed the decision of the agency and found the decision 

was arbitrary, capricious and abusive of discretion and 

affected by other error of law. The District Court adopted 

in their entirety the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

of the hearing examiner. The District Court found the 

Board's interpretation of section 37-8-417, MCA is 

"hypertechnical, defeats the clear intention of the 

legislature and would deprive the public of the services of a 

well qualified, probably over-qualified, licensed practical 

nurse. " 

We agree with the District Court that the Roard's 

interpretation of the statute is hypertechnical. The statute 

should be interpreted to mean the applicant's esucation has 

been approved and authorized by the state in which he has 

been, licensed. The District Court is also correct that the 

Board's interpretation of the statute defeats the intention 

of the legislature. The intention of the legislature is 

expressed in section 37-8-101(2), MCA. 

In order to safeguard life and health, any person 

practicing or offering to practice practical 

nursing in this state for compensation or personal 

gain shall be required to submit evidence that he 

or she is qualified to practice and shall be 

licensed as hereinafter provided. 

Denying this applicant a license frustrates the legislative 

intent of safeguarding life and health. Finally, the 

District Court is correct in holding that denying this 

appl-icilnt a license deprives the public of a well.-qualified 

applicant. It has not been argued and cannot be argued that 
the applicant's qualificati.ons are in any way deficient for 

the purpose of being a licensed practical nurse in Montana. 

The effect of the Board's decision is to deny to 

qualified applicants the right to practice in Kontana. The 

District Court did not err. We affirm. 

FJe Concur: 

/ 

<I / Chief Justice A