complex statutory and regulatory framework in Massachusetts

2011Corp. v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 435 Mass. 144, 150-151 (2001).

2007“Where, as here, the case involves inteipretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework, ‘[w]e give great deference to the department’s expertise in areas where the Legislature has delegated its decision making authority.’ ” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energy, 435 Mass. 144, 150-151 (2001), quoting Stow Mun.

2016Deference is particularly appropriate when the statute in question explicitly grants broad-rule making authority to the agency, contains an ambiguity or gap, or broadly sets out a legislative policy that must be interpreted by the agency." Souza v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 462 Mass. 227, 229 (2012).

2015Deference is particularly appropriate when the statute in question grants broad rule-making authority to the agency, contains an ambiguity or gap, or broadly sets out a legislative policy that must be interpreted by the agency." Souza v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 462 Mass. 227, 229 (2012) (citations omitted).

2016“Especially is this so when the case involves interpretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework such as Medicaid.” Shelales v. Dir. of the Office of Medicaid, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 636, 640 (2009).

2015This court gives substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of those statutes with which it is charged with enforcing This is “(e]specially [ ] so when the case involves interpretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework such as Medicaid.” Shelales Dir. of the Office of Medicaid, 75 Mass.App.Ct. 636, 640 (2009) (citation omitted).

2020Utils., 461 Mass. 166, 178 (2011), quoting Cambridge v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 449 Mass. 868, 875 (2007).

2020Utils., 461 Mass. 166, 178 (2011), quoting Cambridge v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 449 Mass. 868, 875 (2007).

2020See also Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc., 461 Mass. at 178 (describing "great deference" owed to department's expertise in cases involving "interpretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework").

2018The court will approve an agency's statutory interpretation where it is reasonable, particularly in cases involving "interpretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework." Attorney Gen. v. Commissioner of Ins., 450 Mass. 311, 319 (2008).

2011However, this principle is deference, not abdication, and courts will not hesitate to overrule agency interpretations when those interpretations are arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the plain terms of the regulation itself”); Springfield v. Department of Telecommunications & Cable, 457 Mass. at 572 (“In light of the deference we give to the department’s expertise and experience, particularly where this interpretive question arises under a complex statutory and regulatory framework, we conclude that the department’s interpretation ... is soundly based”); Forman, 79 Mass. App. Ct. a

2009See Kozloski v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 783, 786 (2004) (great deference afforded to agency’s expertise when it is charged with applying difficult and complex set of regulations).

2005Utils., 426 Mass. 341, 344 (1997) (“Where, as here, the case involves interpretation of a complex statutory and regulatory framework, ‘[w]e give great deference to the department’s expertise and experience in areas where the Legislature has delegated to it decision making authority’ ”).