Legal Opinion

Sather v. Adult & Family Services Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 18, 1991No. CA A67165Published

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Petitioner challenges the validity of an amendment to an administrative plan that provides that new dentures for adults are excluded from Medicaid coverage. The issue is whether the amendment was a “rule” within the definition of ORS 183.310(8).1 Ifitwas arule, petitioner argues that it was invalid, because it exceeded respondent Adult and Family Services Division’s (AFSD) statutory authority and was promulgated without the rulemaking procedures of ORS 183.335. We hold that the amendment was not a rule and, therefore, dismiss the petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction. ORS…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Burke v. Public Welfare DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  2. Associated Oregon Veterans v. Department of Veterans' AffairsOregon Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Associated Oregon Veterans v. Department of Veterans' AffairsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API