Opinion ID: 2608898
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Challenged Regulations

Text: This case involves the validity of regulations promulgated by the Department pursuant to a delegation of legislative power to license and regulate hospitals. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 208, subd. (a), 1253, 1254, 1254.1, 1298.) [1] In implementing section 1316.5, the statute at issue here, the Department issued two regulations according psychiatrists primary responsibility for diagnostic formulation and treatment of patients hospitalized for mental problems. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, §§ 70577, subd. (d)(1), 71203, subd. (a)(1)(A).) One regulation applied to general acute care hospitals, the other to acute psychiatric hospitals. ( Id., tit. 22, §§ 70005, 71005.) The standard governing our review of the Department's regulations in this case is unambiguous. The regulations are not alleged to be arbitrary, capricious or wholly lacking in evidentiary support; the only question before this court is whether the regulations transgress statutory power. ( Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733, 749 [63 Cal. Rptr. 689, 433 P.2d 697].) Courts have long recognized that the Legislature may elect to defer to and rely upon the expertise of administrative agencies [citations]. ( Credit Ins. Gen. Agents Assn. v. Payne (1976) 16 Cal.3d 651, 656 [128 Cal. Rptr. 881, 547 P.2d 993].) Judicial interference is warranted only when the agency has clearly overstepped its statutory authority. ( Ford Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347, 356 [185 Cal. Rptr. 453, 650 P.2d 328].) Under established principles [an agency's] construction is to be regarded with deference by a court performing the judicial function of statutory construction, and will generally be followed unless it is clearly erroneous. ( San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 856 [191 Cal. Rptr. 800, 663 P.2d 523].) As we observed in Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 848, 859 [176 Cal. Rptr. 753, 633 P.2d 949]: [B]oth this court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized on numerous occasions that `[t]he construction of a statute by the officials charged with its administration must be given great weight....' (First brackets added.) The majority invokes this legal standard but ignores its application. The majority accords no deference whatsoever to the Department's interpretation of the statutes it is charged with implementing and enforcing. Disregarding the Department's reasonable interpretation of the law, the majority substitutes its judgment for that of the rulemaking agency, in violation of Government Code section 11340.1. As demonstrated below, the challenged regulations are (1) consistent with section 1316.5, which contains no language granting clinical psychologists primary responsibility for hospitalized patients, and (2) in conformance with the statute's legislative history, which establishes the Legislature's overwhelming rejection  by a vote of 45 to 13  of the very language that the majority claims the Department should have adopted in its regulations.