Deference to Agency Interpretations

  
• This Court will defer to an agency's  legal determination where that agency is interpreting a statute that it has  been authorized by the legislature to administer.  Lewis v. B&B Pawnbrokers, Inc., 1998  MT 302, ¶ 43, 292 Mont. 82, 968 P.2d 1145.

  
• We give deference to an agency's  interpretation of a statute via its administrative rules unless the  interpretation produces an absurd result.  Synek v. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund., 272  Mont. 246, 251, 900 P.2d 884, 887 (1995).

  
• The court must show deference and  respect to the interpretations given the statute by the officer and agencies  charged with administration.  The  persuasiveness of an administrative interpretation of a statute depends upon  the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning  and its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements of the same  agency.  State by Dep't of Highways v. Midland  Materials Co., 204 Mont. 65, 70-71, 662 P.2d 1322, 1325 (1983).

  
• An interpretation of federal law by the  federal agency that administers it is afforded great deference.  BNSF Ry. C. v. Feit, 2012  MT 147, ¶ 29, 365 Mont. 359, 281 P.3d 225.

  
• The principle of granting judicial  deference to the interpretation given to a statute by an executive agency  charged with its enforcement is appropriate when the statute is ambiguous.  Helena Aerie No. 16, F.O.E. v. Mont.  Dep't of Revenue, 251 Mont. 77, 82, 822 P.2d 1057, 1058  (1991).

  
• Where the intent of the statutes is  unclear, deference will be given to the agency's interpretation.  Where it appears that the legislative intent  is clearly contrary to agency interpretation, the court will not hesitate to  reverse on the basis of "abuse of discretion."   Those challenging the agency interpretation have the burden of showing  that their rights were substantially prejudiced by an arbitrary or capricious  or clearly erroneous agency decision.  Carruthers v. Board of Horse Racing of  Dep't of Commerce, 216 Mont. 184, 187-88, 700 P.2d 179,  181 (1985).

  
• The general rule is that because of the  expertise an agency has in the area it administers, the interpretation of  statutes administered by the agency is given great deference by the  courts.  It is a well-accepted rule of  statutory construction that the long and continued contemporaneous and  practical interpretation of a statute by the executive officers charged with  its administration and enforcement constitutes an invaluable aid in determining  the meaning of a doubtful statute.  Where  such an interpretation has stood unchallenged for a considerable length of time  it will be regarded as a great importance in arriving at the proper  construction of a statute.  This  "deference" is analogous to an agency or officer's interpretation of a statute  to estoppel, due to the reliance by the public and those having an interest in  the interpretation of the law.  Thus, the  foregoing rule of deference applies, generally speaking, where the particular  meaning of a statute has been placed in doubt, and where a particular meaning  has been ascribed to a statute by an agency through a long and continued course  of consistent interpretation, resulting in an identifiable reliance.  Even then, such administrative  interpretations are not binding on the courts; rather, they are entitled to  "respectful consideration."  Accordingly,  the test of time and reliance may nevertheless yield to a judicial determination  that construction is nevertheless wrong, based on "compelling  indications."  Mont. Power Co. v. Mont. PSC, 2001  MT 102, ¶¶ 23-25, 305 Mont. 260, 26 P.3d 91.   See also City of Great Falls v. Mont. Dept. of  Pub. Serv. Regulation, 2011 MT 144, ¶¶ 10-11, 361 Mont. 69,  254 P.3d 595.

  
• An administrative agency's  quasi-legislative authority may be challenged pursuant to Montana statute.  However, where the challenger does not meet  the burden of proof, deference to the agency's decision is appropriate.  Lohmeier v. State, 2008  MT 307, ¶¶ 27-28, 346 Mont. 23, 192 P.3d 1137.

  
• In determining whether the agency  correctly interpreted its own rules, procedures, or policies, the agency's  interpretation should be afforded great weight, and the court should defer to  that interpretation unless it is plainly inconsistent with the spirit of the  rule.  The agency's interpretation of the  rule will be sustained so long as it lies within the range of reasonable  interpretation permitted by the wording.  Knowles v. State ex rel. Lindeen, 2009  MT 415, ¶ 22, 353 Mont. 507, 222 P.3d 595.