Cited by

statute authorizing judicial review of agency, city, town or county decisions”); Scottsdale Healthcare, –9, ¶ 29 (2003) (holding that award of fees under § 12-348(A)(2) would be premature in view of remand to superior court).

Admin., ¶ 27 (2003) for the proposition that an "agency interpretation of a statute is given weight").

Admin., ¶ 27 (2003) (noting that agency interpretation of a statute is given weight).

¶ 22, ("Neither the statute's plain language nor its intent contemplates that such a narrow, bright line distinction be drawn between what is an emergency condition and what is not.").

Admin., ¶ 29, (alteration in original).

Although this court determines whether DHS has properly interpreted the relevant law, DHS’ interpretation of applicable statutes and regulations “‘is *66 entitled to great weight.’ ” , 8 ¶ 27, (citation omitted); accord Ariz. Water Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t Water Resources, , 154 ¶ 30, (noting, where Legislature “has not spoken” on issue, “ ‘considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entru

Admin., n.6, ¶ 20 (2003) (citing Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./W., 289 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Admin., -9, ¶ 29 , -99 (2003).

Admin., ¶ 10 , (“In interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself.

Admin., ¶ 10 , (citation omitted).

Admin., ¶ 10 , (internal citation omitted).

Admin., -9, ¶ 29, -99 (2003) (denying fee request as premature under § 12-348(A)(2) for parties who obtained remand for further trial court proceedings).

Admin., ¶ 10 , ( , )(“[W]e first look to the language of the statute itself.