Leon V. and Cristy V., on behalf of Paige V., a minor child, appellees,
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services et al., appellants.
Administrative Law: Judgments: Appeal and
Error. A judgment or final order rendered by a district court
in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate
court for errors appearing on the record.
__:__:__. When reviewing an order of a district court under
the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the
record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the
law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither
arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate
court, in reviewing a district court's judgment for
errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its
factual findings for those of the district court where
competent evidence supports those findings.
Administrative Law: Judgments: Statutes: Appeal
and Error. To the extent that the meaning
and interpretation of statutes and regulations are involved,
an appellate court decides such questions of law
independently of the decision made by the court below.
Administrative Law: Statutes. Properly adopted and filed
agency regulations have the effect of statutory law.
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory
language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and
an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to
ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain,
direct, and unambiguous.
from the District Court for Lancaster County: Susan I.
Strong, Judge. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and
remanded with directions.
Neb. 82] Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Ryan C.
Gilbride for appellants.
Mangiameli and Joanna Uden, Senior Certified Law Student, of
Legal Aid of Nebraska, for appellees.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik,
and Freudenberg JJ.
the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
found that Paige V.'s gastrointestinal impairments would
not last for at least 12 months, it determined that Paige was
ineligible for Medicaid funding through the Nebraska Medicaid
Assistance Program and hence ineligible for "assistance
to the aged, blind, or disabled" (AABD) Medicaid waiver
services. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 68-1001 et seq. (Reissue
2018). Leon V. and Cristy V., on behalf of their minor child
Paige, sought review by the district court for Lancaster
County under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The
district court found that the evidence showed that Paige was
disabled for purposes of determining Medicaid benefits. The
district court reversed the DHHS order and remanded the
matter with directions to award Paige AABD waiver services
and reimburse Leon and Cristy for medical expenses. DHHS and
two of its officers, in their official capacities, appeal.
Although they do not dispute the finding that Paige was
disabled for determining Medicaid eligibility, they claim
that the district court erred in its instructions on remand
when it directed DHHS to award Medicaid waiver services and