In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal by Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-0696

In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal by Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc.

Filed February 17, 2026
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Minnesota Department of Human Services
File No. 39441

Christianna L. Finnern, Tracy L. Jacobs, Winthrop & Weinstine, P .A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for relator Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc.)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Brian M. Card, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
∗
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator Midwest Quality Home Care, Inc. challenges an
order of respondent Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) suspending Midwest
from participating in the Minnesota Health Care Programs. We affirm.

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
FACTS
Midwest is an agency that, before the events underlying this appeal, received
reimbursement from Minnesota’s Medicaid program, Medical Assistance, for
personal-care-assistance services it provided. See Minn. Stat. § 256B.04 (2024 &
Supp. 2025); Minn. R. 9505.0011 (2023); see also Minn. Stat. §§ 256B.01-.85 (2024 &
Supp. 2025); Minn. R. 9505.0295, .0335 (2023). DHS administers the Medical Assistance
program. See Minn. R. 9505.0011; Minn. Stat. §§ 256B.01-.85 1 (2024). DHS oversees
the reimbursement process and, when necessary, “conducts audits and investigations into
suspected noncompliance with program requirements.” In re SIRS Appeal by Best Care,
LLC, 26 N.W.3d 459, 463 (Minn. 2025).
In 2017, DHS began to investigate a complaint that Midwest had submitted
fraudulent claims for reimbursement. In 2020, DHS sent Midwest a notice of overpayment
and sanctioned appellant with a stipulated provider agreement . See Minn. Stat.
§ 256B.064, subd. 1b (2025); Minn. R. 9505.2210, subps. 1, 2(B)(2) (2025) (listing
“provider agreement which stipulates specific conditions of participation” as permissible
sanction upon detection of “fraud, theft, abuse, or error in connection with a program” ).
The agreement included a noncompliance provision, which provided that, “if DHS
determines [Midwest] has failed to meet the terms and conditions of this agreement, DHS
will suspend [Midwest] from participation in [the Minnesota Health Care Programs] for a
period of two (2) years.” Midwest signed the agreement in 2021, remained a participant in
the Minnesota Health Care Programs, and did not appeal DHS’s decision to sanction it.
3
In March 2022, DHS received another complaint alleging that Midwest defrauded
DHS. In April 2023, after an investigation, DHS sent Midwest a notice of monetary
recovery and suspension. The notice alleged that Midwest violated the agreement and
defrauded DHS by, among other things, forging signatures on providers’ time sheets.
Midwest appealed the notice in May 2023, requesting a contested-case hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ). Between May and August 2023, DHS sent Midwest two
amended notices, as well as a notice and order for prehearing conference. All notices listed
the same allegations against Midwest and referenced the parties’ agreement.
Before the contested-case hearing, Midwest conceded that it had violated several
provisions of the agreement. The parties then agreed that the issues to be determined at
the contested-case hearing would be whether DHS properly (1) sought monetary sanctions
for the alleged forgery and (2) suspended Midwest for two years.
After the hearing , the ALJ filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
recommendation. The ALJ recommended that the commissioner of human services:
(1) affirm the two-year suspension of Midwest’s participation in the Minnesota Health
Care Programs for violating the agreement; (2) affirm two uncontested monetary sanctions;
and (3) rescind the monetary sanction attributable to the forgery allegations because DHS
did not prove that forgery occurred. The commissioner issued a final order that fully
adopted the ALJ’s recommendation.
Midwest appeals.
4
DECISION
Appellate courts give substantial deference to an agency’ s decision. See In re
Correction Orders Issued to Wealshire of Bloomington, 3 N.W.3d 284, 289 (Minn. App.
2024). In reviewing an agency’s decision, we may affirm or remand for further
proceedings. In re Wetland Conservation Act Appeal by Stock, 4 N.W.3d 502, 506 (Minn.
App. 2024). “We may also reverse or modify the decision, but only ‘if the substantial
rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced.’” Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 14.69
(2022)). “Our review of a contested-case decision is limited to whether the deci sion is:
(1) unconstitutional; (2) in excess of the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction; (3) the
result of unlawful procedure; (4) affected by legal error; (5) unsupported by substantial
evidence; or (6) arbitrary or capricious.” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 14.69).
On appeal, Midwest challenges its two- year suspension, contending that (1) the
commissioner erred by determining that it may enforce the agreement without performing
the statutory analysis described in Minnesota Statutes section 256B.064, subdivision 1b;
(2) the commissioner violated Midwest’s procedural due-process rights; and (3) the
suspension is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and unlawfully
severe. We address each argument in turn.
I. DHS does not need to conduct the statutory analysis to enforce a prior sanction.

The commissioner’s final order adopted the ALJ’s finding that, when the prior
sanction— here, the stipulated provider agreement—is not challenged, DHS can enforce
that agreement without repeating the statutory analysis provided in Minnesota Statutes
section 256B.064, subdivision 1b. Midwest disputes this finding, arguing that it runs
5
contrary to the plain language of the statute. Midwest’s argument presents a question of
statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See In re SIRS Appeal by Nobility Home
Health Care, Inc., 999 N.W.2d 843, 851 (Minn. 2024).
An entity reimbursed through Medical Assistance may be sanctioned if it engaged
in certain conduct, as determined by DHS. See Minn. Stat. § 256B.064, subd. 1b.
However, “[w]hen imposing sanctions under [section 256B.064, subdivision 1b],” DHS
must “consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the conduct and the effect of the
conduct on the health and safety of persons served by the individual or entity.” Id.
Midwest was sanctioned with a stipulated provider agreement, which Midwest
signed in 2021. On appeal, Midwest does not contest the imposition or validity of that
sanction. Instead, Midwest appeals the enforcement of that sanction’s noncompliance
provision, which provided that any failure to comply would result in a two-year suspension
from the Minnesota Health Care Programs. Section 256B.064, subdivision 1b, does not
require DHS to perform the statutory analysis when enforcing a sanction. We therefore
conclude that the commissioner did not violate section 256B.064, subdivision 1b, when it
affirmed Midwest’s suspension. And no alleged failure to perform the statutory analysis
when imposing that suspension under the terms of the agreement renders the
commissioner’s final order erroneous.
6
II. The commissioner did not violate Midwest’s procedural due-process rights.

Midwest contends that the commissioner violated its procedural due-process rights
by imposing “the suspension based on arguments, allegations, and legal theories” that it
contends were not raised in the notices or litigated before the ALJ. “Whether procedural
due process has been violated is a question of law that we review de novo.” Gams v.
Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 618 (Minn. 2016).
“We conduct a two-step analysis to determine whether the government has violated
an individual’s procedural due process rights.” Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes , 823 N.W.2d
627, 632 (Minn. 2012). First, we identify whether Midwest was deprived of a “protected
life, liberty, or property interest.” Id. Second, we must determine whether constitutionally
sufficient procedures were employed. Id. Constitutionally sufficient procedures include
notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id.
Midwest challenges only whether the commissioner provided adequate notice and
an opportunity to be heard before imposing the suspension for violating the stipulated
provider agreement. Midwest’s argument is unavailing for two reasons. First, all four
notices listed the violation of the parties’ agreement as one of several grounds for sanctions.
Second, Midwest had the opportunity to dispute DHS’s allegation that it violated the
agreement at a hearing before an ALJ. Since Midwest was afforded notice and an
opportunity to be heard, its due-process argument fails.1

1 Midwest also incorporates its statutory-analysis argument into its procedural due-process
argument. But, again, Midwest ’s statutory-analysis argument is unpersuasive because
Midwest did not challenge the stipulated provider agreement or its noncompliance terms.

7
III. Midwest’s challenges to the agreement are not properly before this court.

Midwest argues that its suspension is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary
and capricious, and unlawfully severe. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2024). DHS contends
that, by challenging its two-year suspension under the terms of the stipulated provider
agreement, Midwest is collaterally attacking the agreement. We agree with DHS.
Midwest’s true qualms concern the terms of the stipulated provider agreement
because the agency action that it challenges—its suspension— was imposed under the terms
of that agreement. When DHS provides notice that it will impose a sanction, such as a
stipulated provider agreement, the sanctioned entity has thirty days to request a contested-
case hearing. Minn. Stat. § 256B.064, subd. 2(f). Midwest did not seek a contested-case
hearing at the time it entered into the stipulated provider agreement, and it does not argue
that it is entitled to judicial review of the agreement now. See id.2 This court does not
consider arguments that the parties have not made. See In re Civ. Commitment of Kropp,
895 N.W.2d 647, 653 (Minn. App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017). Accordingly,
Midwest’s challenge to the suspension under the terms of the agreement is not before us.
Affirmed.

Since Midwest does not—and cannot—challenge the stipulated provider agreement on
appeal, Midwest cannot now take issue with DHS enforcement of the agreement’s terms.

2 Cf. State by Malcolm v. Iron Waffle Coffee Co., No. A21-0892, 2022 WL 589247, at *5-
7 (Minn. App. Feb. 28, 2022) (explaining process to appeal agency decision, state court
jurisdiction over agency decisions, and rejecting collateral attack on previously imposed
agency decision), rev. denied (Minn. May 31, 2022). See also Minn R. Civ. App. P. 136.01,
subd. 1(c) (stating that nonprecedential opinions are not binding authority but “may be
cited as persuasive authority”).