Cited by

¶ 25 (App. 2009) (“[W]hen the [L]egislature makes a requirement in one provision of the statute but does not include it in another, we assume the absence of the requirement was intentional.”).

This court is “free to draw [its] own legal conclusions in determining if the agency properly interpreted the law.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

See, e.g., Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC

Co., and it is without power to enact a regulation that conflicts with a statute, –95, ¶¶ 18–19 (App. 2009) (determining whether an administrative rule and agency policy “unlawfully restrict[ed] the statutory grant of coverage”); see also Freelance Interpreting Servs., ¶ 26 (App. 2006) (an administrative rule that diminishes the rights in an enabling statute is

¶ 9 “We give great weight to ‘[a]n agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it implements.’ ” ¶ 18 , (citation omitted).

§ 12—2101 (A)(2) in such a manner would run counter to statutory construction principles, , 497 ¶ 30, ("One of the primary principles of statutory interpretation is not to construe statutes to give an absurd result”); Deer Valley Unified Sch.

¶ 30 (App. 2009) (“One of the primary principles of statutory interpretation is not to construe statutes to give an absurd result”); Deer Valley Unified Sch.

¶ 25 , (“Under the statutory interpretive principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when the legislature makes a requirement in one provision of the statute but does not include it in another, we assume the absence of the requirement was intentional.” (citation omitted)).

¶ 31, (holding a regulation invalid that conflicted with an applicable statute); Ferguson v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

(invalidating regulation requiring dentist and physician recommendations for patient to receive dentures, which conflicted with statute requiring only dentist’s recommendation dentures medically necessary; invalidating regulation on additional ground regulation required medical condition beyo