Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-621 (2026)

When Absent Members Render Decision -- Proposal For Decision And Opportunity To Submit Findings And Conclusions -- Modification By Agency

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Part 6. Contested Cases

When Absent Members Render Decision -- Proposal For Decision And Opportunity To Submit Findings And Conclusions -- Modification By Agency

2-4-621. When absent members render decision -- proposal for decision and opportunity to submit findings and conclusions -- modification by agency. (1) When in a contested case a majority of the officials of the agency who are to render the final decision have not heard the case, the decision, if adverse to a party to the proceeding other than the agency itself, may not be made until a proposal for decision is served upon the parties and an opportunity is afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present briefs and oral argument to the officials who are to render the decision.

(2) The proposal for decision must contain a statement of the reasons for the decision and of each issue of fact or law necessary to the proposed decision and must be prepared by the person who conducted the hearing unless that person becomes unavailable to the agency.

(3) The agency may adopt the proposal for decision as the agency's final order. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the proposal for decision but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record and states with particularity in the order that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The agency may accept or reduce the recommended penalty in a proposal for decision but may not increase it without a review of the complete record.

(4) A hearings officer who is a member of an agency adjudicative body may participate in the formulation of the agency's final order, provided that the hearings officer has completed all duties as the hearings officer.

History: En. Sec. 12, Ch. 2, Ex. L. 1971; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 285, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 82-4212(part); amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 277, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 45, Ch. 61, L. 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Blaine & Hill Co. v. Stricker, 2017 MT 80 (Mont. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blaine & Hill Co. v. Stricker, 2017 MT 80 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 19× “¶19 Relying on Schmidt and § 2-4-621(3), MCA, Judge Sherlock noted that, when reviewing hearing officer decisions, the Commission applies a standard of review different from the standard a reviewing court applies to the Commission’s decisions.”

Munn v. Montana Bd. of Med. Examiners, 2005 MT 303 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 54× “During this hearing, Anne O’Leary (O’Leary), a member of the Board and an attorney, said that, under § 2-4-621(3), MCA, the agency may not increase the recommended penalty without reviewing the complete record.”

State Pers. Div. v. Child Support Investigators, 2002 MT 46 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 20× “¶25 An agency in its final order may not reject or modify the hearing officer’s findings of fact unless it first determines from a review of the complete record and states with particularity in the order that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial…”

City of Billings v. State Bd. of Labor Appeals, 663 P.2d 1167 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 24× “In this case, however, the District Court applied the provisions of MAPA, particularly section 2-4-621, MCA, instead of applying the Unemployment Insurance Law.”

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Shodair Hosp., 902 P.2d 21 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 30× “SRS argues that the Board did not comply with § 2-4-621(3), MCA. The District Court determined that the Board violated § 2-4-621(3), MCA, and we agree.”

Brackman v. Bd. of Nursing, 851 P.2d 1055 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 26× “Did the District Court err in ruling that the Board violated § 2-4-621, MCA, by receiving and considering the prosecuting attorney’s proposed findings? 2.”

Moran v. Shotgun Willies, Inc., 889 P.2d 1185 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 15× “] Section 2-4-704(2)(a)(vi), MCA. This Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion pursuant to the above subsection for an agency to modify the findings of a hearing examiner in violation of § 2-4-621(3), MCA.”

Brander v. Dir., Montana Dep't of Institutions, 806 P.2d 530 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 11× “) Section 2-4-621, MCA, is also found in the Administrative Procedure Act in that chapter which sets forth the procedures to be followed by state agencies in deciding contested cases.”

Grievance of Brady v. Montana Dep't of Just., 1999 MT 153 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 52× “The Brander Court further concluded that if an agency rejects a hearing examiner's "factual recommendations in violation of [§ 2-4-621(3), MCA], it constitute[s] an abuse of discretion within the meaning of § 2-4-704(2)(a)(vi), MCA.”

Mayer v. Bd. of Psychologists, Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2014 MT 85 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 14× “It also would put applicants in the position of always having to retain an expert in order to challenge the Board’s denials of their applications.”

Weber v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Bd., 890 P.2d 1296 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 8× “In Moran , we affirmed the district court determination that there was competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's findings and conclusions and therefore the agency (Human Rights Commission) abused its discretion and exceeded its authority under § 2-4-621(3),…”

Key West, Inc. v. Winkler, 2004 MT 186 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 11× “The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because: (a) the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (vi) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly…”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-621(1) — 5 cases

Great Falls v. Assoc. of Firefighters, 2024 MT 302 (Mont. 2024).

Brackman v. Bd. of Nursing, 851 P.2d 1055 (Mont. 1993). “Did the District Court err in ruling that the Board violated § 2-4-621, MCA, by receiving and considering the prosecuting attorney’s proposed findings? 2.”

Micone v. Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs., 2011 MT 178 (Mont. 2011).

Lowry v. State, 2026 MT 71N (Mont. 2026).

Sorlie v. Dept. of Com., 2000 MT 253N (Mont. 2000).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-621(2) — 1 case

Hartford v. Young, 782 P.2d 365 (Mont. 1989).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 2-4-621(3) — 25 cases

Blaine & Hill Co. v. Stricker, 2017 MT 80 (Mont. 2017). “¶19 Relying on Schmidt and § 2-4-621(3), MCA, Judge Sherlock noted that, when reviewing hearing officer decisions, the Commission applies a standard of review different from the standard a reviewing court applies to the Commission’s decisions.”

Munn v. Montana Bd. of Med. Examiners, 2005 MT 303 (Mont. 2005). “During this hearing, Anne O’Leary (O’Leary), a member of the Board and an attorney, said that, under § 2-4-621(3), MCA, the agency may not increase the recommended penalty without reviewing the complete record.”

State Pers. Div. v. Child Support Investigators, 2002 MT 46 (Mont. 2002). “¶25 An agency in its final order may not reject or modify the hearing officer’s findings of fact unless it first determines from a review of the complete record and states with particularity in the order that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial…”

State Ex Rel. Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Shodair Hosp., 902 P.2d 21 (Mont. 1995). “SRS argues that the Board did not comply with § 2-4-621(3), MCA. The District Court determined that the Board violated § 2-4-621(3), MCA, and we agree.”

Moran v. Shotgun Willies, Inc., 889 P.2d 1185 (Mont. 1995). “] Section 2-4-704(2)(a)(vi), MCA. This Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion pursuant to the above subsection for an agency to modify the findings of a hearing examiner in violation of § 2-4-621(3), MCA.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.