ANTHONY MELAKIAN and GLADYS MELAKIAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-818 / 05-1597
Filed November 30, 2006
ANTHONY MELAKIAN and
GLADYS MELAKIAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
vs.
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Richard Morr,
Judge.
Anthony and Gladys Melakian appeal the district court ruling dismissing
their claim. AFFIRMED.
Stephen Greenleaf of Lynch, Greenleaf & Michael, Iowa City, for
appellants.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Barbara E.B. Galloway, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Anthony and Gladys Melakian appeal the district court ruling dismissing
their claim. They argue the district court erred in determining (1) it did not have
jurisdiction over their claim and (2) they failed to state a claim. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
The Melakians adopted a child with significant developmental disabilities.
In doing so, they entered into an Adoption Subsidy Agreement with the Iowa
Department of Human Services (DHS). The agreement provided that DHS would
cover the cost of certain medical and therapeutic care for the Melakians’ adopted
child.
Sometime after the adoption, the child’s condition began to deteriorate.
The Melakians sought assistance from the Institute for Attachment and Child
Development in Kittredge, Colorado. They requested DHS to approve the use of
adoption subsidy funds for the treatment. DHS refused, citing the provision in
Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-201.6(1)(a)(1) for the proposition that the
adoption subsidy does not cover in-patient care. 1
The Melakians filed a petition at law alleging breach of contract.
In
response, DHS filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(a) and (f). The
district court dismissed the claim pursuant to the grounds listed in DHS’s motion.
The Melakians appeal.
1
DHS’s denial was also based on the fact that the therapeutic approach is not proven to
be beneficial.
3
II. Standard of Review
We review a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim for errors at law. Stammeyer v. Division of Narcotics
Enforcement of Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 721 N.W.2d 541, 543 (Iowa 2006);
Mlynarik v. Bergantzel, 675 N.W.2d 584, 586 (Iowa 2004) (reviewing dismissal
based on failure to state a claim).
III. Merits
The Melakians argue DHS breached a contract when it refused to
subsidize the treatment they requested. DHS argues its denial was an agency
action under Iowa Code section 17A (2005) and that, therefore, the Melakians
must pursue their claim through the administrative relief procedures outlined in
section 17A.
An agency action is defined as
includ[ing] the whole or a part of an agency rule or other statement
of law or policy, order, decision, license, proceeding, investigation,
sanction, relief, or the equivalent or a denial thereof, or a failure to
act, or any other exercise of agency discretion or failure to do so, or
the performance of any agency duty or the failure to do so.
Iowa Code § 17A.2(2).
The provisions for adoption assistance are outlined in Iowa Code sections
600.17 through 600.23. In section 600.22, the legislature assigned DHS the
responsibility of promulgating rules and procedures to administer the subsidies.
That section states, “The department of human services shall adopt rules in
accordance with the provisions of chapter 17A, which are necessary for the
administration of sections 600.17 to 600.21 and 600.23.”
As a result, DHS
4
promulgated rules regulating subsidized adoptions. See Iowa Admin. Code r.
441-201.
According to the agency’s rules governing subsidized adoptions, the
Melakian’s subsidy is a “special service.” Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-201.6(1).
DHS concluded that, according to the adoption subsidy rules and the Melakian’s
adoption agreement, only outpatient treatment is covered by the subsidy. See
Iowa Admin. Code r. 441-201.6(1)(a)(1). Because the treatment requested by
the Melakians required inpatient care, DHS treated the application for funds as a
request for an exception to DHS policy.
DHS provides no interdepartmental
appeal process for the denial of requests for exceptions. See Iowa Admin. Code
r. 441-1.8(1)(f) and (h). Further, since DHS’s denial is neither rulemaking nor a
contested case, the denial must be considered “other agency action.”
See
Brummer v. Iowa Dep’t of Corrections, 661 N.W.2d 167, 172 (Iowa 2003)
(defining agency rulemaking and contested cases and outlining the procedures
required to protect due process); Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Health,
State Health Facilities Council, 641 N.W.2d 823, 834 (Iowa 2002) (same). In
order to challenge “other agency action,” a party must file a petition for judicial
review under Iowa Code section 17A.19. Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at
833-34.
Because the Melakians failed to properly challenge DHS’s
determination, the ruling of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
