Boatwright v. DHS

When an agency’s interpretation of its own rule is challenged, “we give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is ‘plausible,’ that is, if it is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.” Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994). 

Plaintiff appealed from an order by the Department of Human Services (DHS) that determined DHS was entitled to recover an overpayment of funds paid to Plaintiff for child care services she provided. Plaintiff assigned error to the DHS’s determination that Plaintiff was ineligible to receive payments for a certain period of time. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that because DHS approved her to provide child care services and did not hold an administrative hearing to determine she was no longer eligible, DHS could not recover payments for services she already provided. In response, DHS argued that under administrative rules, Plaintiff was required to notify DHS of changes that affected her eligibility as a provider, and because she failed to do so, Plaintiff was ineligible to receive some of the payments she collected. When an agency’s interpretation of its own rule is challenged, “we give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is ‘plausible,’ that is, if it is not inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law.” Don’t Waste Oregon Com. v. Energy Facility Siting, 320 Or 132, 142, 881 P2d 119 (1994).  The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that because DHS’s rule did not explicitly state “that a failure to comply with any one of the many requirements . . . would also automatically result in ineligibility,” Plaintiff was not ineligible at the time she received payments and DHS could not recover overpayments for services already provided by Plaintiff. Reversed.