Keirsten Smart v. State of Alaska, Department Of…

Summary

The court held that DHSS's notice of its Medicaid recoupment decision was constitutionally inadequate because it did not timely state the amount to be recouped, explain the extrapolation methodology, or clearly advise Smart of her right to administrative review. Because the defective notice prevented the administrative-exhaustion period from commencing, the court reversed dismissal of Smart's due process claims and remanded for a new opportunity to seek review. The court separately affirmed that DHSS's audit Protocol was not a regulation requiring promulgation under the APA.