Opinion ID: 2595652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Grant Summary Judgment in Favor of the State Defendants

Text: Mat-Su asked the superior court to declare that the state's CON determination was contrary to the CON statutes and regulations. Mat-Su argued that the state defendants adopted a laissez faire attitude and blindly accepted [Advanced Pain's] representations with no independent analysis or investigation. Mat-Su contended that their head-in-the-sand-approach permitted Advanced Pain to violate the CON laws. Mat-Su appears to renew on appeal the contentions it made below. It argues that DHSS blindly accepted Advanced Pain's representations with no independent analysis or investigation and was, as a result, at least partially complicit in Advanced Pain's deception. Mat-Su contends that even a cursory review of Advanced Pain's CON determination request would have revealed that it was inadequate because it did not contain certified estimates or other supporting information for the claimed project costs. Mat-Su argues that this information was required by 7 AAC 07.031 and that the state defendants might have been able to discover Advanced Pain's duplicity if they had properly administered the CON laws and regulations. The state responds that Mat-Su has either waived or abandoned any claims it may have had against the state defendants. Even if Mat-Su's claim was not abandoned, the state argues that we should affirm the grant of summary judgment because Mat-Su's complaint was an untimely administrative appeal and because the commissioner's consideration of Advanced Pain's request for determination was proper as a matter of law. The superior court granted summary judgment to the state defendants on the sole ground that [t]he opportunity to obtain a judicial ruling reversing the commissioner's administrative decision was lost when timely appeal of the decision was not taken. But we noted above that the thirty-day period in which to seek judicial review never began to run against Mat-Su because DHSS did not clearly state in its May 3, 2006 letter either that the letter was the final agency decision or that Mat-Su had thirty days to appeal. [35] We therefore hold that it was error to grant summary judgment to the state defendants on the ground Mat-Su's action was untimely, and remand for further proceedings. [36]