from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D.
Pfaltzgraff's appeals the district court ruling denying
her petition for judicial review. AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
W. Nelson of Sellers, Galenbeck and Nelson, Des Moines, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tabitha J. Gardner,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
appeal, like Endress v. Iowa Department of Human
Services, No. 18-1329, 2019 WL ___, at * ___ (Iowa Ct.
App. June 19, 2019), also filed today, concerns attempts by
the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) to recoup
payments to childcare providers under the Child Care
Assistance Program (CCAP). Julie Pfaltzgraff appeals the
district court ruling denying her petition for judicial
review. We reverse for the reasons set forth in
Endress but affirm the district court's
determination that Pfaltzgraff failed to preserve error on
her remaining claim.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
was a registered childcare provider who had signed an
agreement allowing the DHS to pay her directly for childcare
services she provided to families eligible for the CCAP. In
May 2016, the DHS sent Pfaltzgraff a notice that it was
revoking her childcare registration and cancelling the CCAP
agreement. Pfaltzgraff appealed the decision. Although the
agency reversed the decision to revoke her childcare
registration, it approved the termination of her CCAP
agreement in its final decision, issued in September 2016.
her appeal was pending, Pfaltzgraff elected to continue
receiving CCAP payments. The notice of cancellation of her
CCAP agreement set out her right to continue receipt of CCAP
payments during the appeal process but cautioned, "Any
benefits you get while your appeal is being decided may have
to be paid back if the Department's action is
correct." The appeal form asked, "Do you want your
benefits to continue during your appeal? (You may have to pay
them back, if you lose your appeal)"; Pfaltzgraff
October 31, 2016, the DHS sent Pfaltzgraff a notice of CCAP
overpayment, alleging she owed it $31, 815.46 for CCAP
payments made during the appeal process. The notice states
the reason for the money owed is "[a] mistake by a
provider that caused DHS to pay the provider incorrectly for
child care services." It also states, "This
overpayment happened because of [y]our choice to continue
benefits pending an appeal." Pfaltzgraff appealed, and
the decision was affirmed. Pfaltzgraff petitioned for
judicial review in the district court, alleging among other
claims that the DHS violated her right to procedural due
process by failing to provide adequate notice that she was
required to repay all CCAP funds she received during the
appeal process. The district court determined that the DHS
satisfied due process requirements and affirmed the
recoupment of the CCAP payments.
Scope and Standard of Review.
a judicial review action on appeal, our job is to determine
whether in applying the applicable standards of review under
section 17A.19(10) [(2017)], we reach the same conclusions as
the district court." Colwell v. Iowa Dep't of
Human Servs., 923 N.W.2d 225, 238 (Iowa 2019),
reh'g denied (Mar. 8, 2019).
We can grant relief from agency action if the action is
"[u]nconstitutional on its face or as applied or is
based upon a provision of law that is unconstitutional on its
face or as applied." We do not give any deference to the
agency with respect to the constitutionality of a statute or
administrative rule because it is entirely within the
province of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality
of legislation enacted by other ...