Title: Ray Hanley, In His Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Arkansas State Claims Commission et al.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Ray HANLEY, in His Official Capacity as Director of the 
              Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services
         v. ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION; Norman L. Hodges,   
        Jr., In His Official Capacity as Director of the Arkansas 
        State Claims Commission; and Diane Pieroni, Robert Handley, 
       Joe Peacock, and Ralph Patton, in Their Official Capacities 
                as Arkansas State Claims Commissioners

97-775                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                  Opinion delivered May 7, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- issue not ruled on at trial not considered
     on appeal. -- Where an issue was not ruled on at trial, the
     supreme court was precluded from considering it on appeal.

2.   Mandamus, writ of -- trial court's ruling on -- when reversed.
     -- The supreme court will reverse a trial court's ruling on a
     petition for a writ of mandamus only if there has been an
     abuse of discretion. 

3.   Mandamus, writ of -- when appropriate -- first factor to be
     established. -- A writ of mandamus, as defined by Ark. Code
     Ann.  16-115-101 (1987), is appropriate if two factors are
     established; first, the judiciary may issue a writ of mandamus
     to an executive or legislative officer only if the duty to be
     compelled is ministerial and not discretionary; although the
     writ cannot be used to control or review matters of
     discretion, it may be used to force an official to exercise
     that discretion. 

4.   Mandamus, writ of -- when appropriate -- second factor to be
     established. -- The second factor to be established when
     determining if a writ of mandamus is appropriate is that the
     petitioner must show a clear and certain right to the relief
     sought and the absence of any other adequate remedy; the
     alternative remedy must be adequate, and not merely plausible;
     to be adequate, the alternative remedy must be plain and
     complete and as practical and efficient to the ends of justice
     and its proper administration as the remedy invoked; the
     supreme court has refused to issue a writ of mandamus where
     the petitioner had the adequate remedy of raising the issue on
     appeal.

5.   Appeal & error -- Claims Commission is arm of General Assembly
     -- rulings may be appealed only to General Assembly. -- The
     Arkansas State Claims Commission is an arm of the General
     Assembly; a party may only appeal the Commission's rulings to
     the General Assembly.

6.   Mandamus, writ of -- appellant failed to establish both
     factors -- no abuse of discretion in trial court's denial of
     appellant's petition for writ. -- Where appellant was asking
     the judiciary to compel the Claims Commission to reverse its
     prior discretionary determination that it had jurisdiction to
     hear a Medicaid claim, and where appellant had the adequate
     remedy of appealing the Commission's ruling to the General
     Assembly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
     denying appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus; appellant
     failed to establish both factors necessary for a writ of
     mandamus to properly issue.

7.   Certiorari, writ of -- trial court's ruling -- when reversed.
     -- The supreme court will reverse a trial court's ruling on a
     petition for a writ of certiorari only if the trial court has
     abused its discretion.   

8.   Certiorari, writ of -- when proper -- when principles
     applicable. -- Certiorari lies only when it is apparent on the
     face of the record that there has been a plain, manifest,
     clear, and gross abuse of discretion, and there is no other
     adequate remedy; these principles apply when a petitioner
     claims that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear
     a claim or to issue a particular type of remedy. 

9.   Certiorari, writ of -- sovereign immunity prevents State and
     its agencies from being named as defendants -- Arkansas Claims
     Commission created as arm of legislature to resolve claims
     against State. -- Pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign
     immunity, neither the State nor its agencies can be named as
     defendants in its courts; the Arkansas Claims Commission was
     created for the sole purpose of hearing and resolving claims
     against the State that could not otherwise be heard by the
     judiciary; the Commission is an arm of the legislature; thus,
     all appeals of the Commission's rulings must be heard by the
     General Assembly and not the courts; the General Assembly has
     total control over the determination of, and subsequent
     funding for, payment of the just debts and obligations of the
     state and all other avenues of redress through legal
     proceedings are barred by sovereign immunity . 

10.  Certiorari, writ of -- dissent's argument without merit --
     argument misconstrued statute and nature of hospital's claim.
     -- The dissent's argument that the last phrase of Ark. Code
     Ann.  19-10-204(b) was clearly intended to except Medicaid
     claims like the hospital's, and that Medicaid reimbursement is
     unquestionably similar to laws providing for old-age
     assistance grants, child-welfare grants, and blind pensions,
     was not well taken where the argument misconstrued the statute
     and the nature of the hospital's claim.

11.  Statutes -- construction of -- doctrines of ejusdem generis
     and noscitur a sociis discussed. -- Pursuant to the doctrine
     of ejusdem generis, when general words follow specific words
     in a statutory enumeration the general words are construed to
     embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects
     enumerated by the preceding specific words; likewise, the
     doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which literally translates to
     "it is known from its associates," provides that a word can be
     defined by the accompanying words.

12.  Statutes -- principles of construction applied to Ark. Code
     Ann.  19-10-204(b) (Supp. 1997) -- claim here for breach of
     contract -- Claims Commission clearly had jurisdiction. -- In
     applying the appropriate principles of construction, the
     supreme court acknowledged that the specifically enumerated
     exceptions to the Claiims Commission's jurisdiction listed in
     Ark. Code Ann  19-10-204(b) all involved claims of a similar
     nature: claims by individuals for benefits arising under a
     statute; in contrast, the hospital filed a breach-of-contract
     claim arising under common law instead of a statute; because
     the hospital filed a contract claim against appellant that was
     clearly within the jurisdiction of the Claims Commission, the
     supreme court could not say that the Commission was proposing
     to act beyond its jurisdiction.

13.  Certiorari, writ of -- appellant failed to satisfy elements
     that would entitle it to writ -- unclear from record that
     Commission did not have jurisdiction over hospital's claim
     against appellant. -- Appellant failed to satisfy both
     elements entitling it to a writ of certiorari; first, the
     supreme court could not say that it was clear from the face of
     the record that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over
     the hospital's claim against appellant; second, because an
     aggrieved party may only appeal the Commission's decision to
     the General Assembly, appellant had the adequate remedy of
     appealing the Commission's ruling to the General Assembly; the 
     trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
     appellant's petition for a writ of certiorari; affirmed.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John B. Plegge, Judge;
affirmed.
     Breck G. Hopkins, for appellant.
     Brian G. Brooks, for appellees.
     Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard PLLC, by: Sherry
P.Bartley and Dowd, Harrelson, Moore & Giles, by: C. Wayne Dowd,
for interventor-appellee.   

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     In this case, we are asked to determine whether the circuit
court erred when it refused to issue either a writ of mandamus or
a writ of certiorari ordering the Arkansas Claims Commission to
dismiss a claim pending before it.  We affirm the trial court's
denial of both writs.
     The Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Medical
Services (DHS) is responsible for administering Medicaid in
Arkansas.  From July 1, 1991, until June 30, 1994, DHS established
Medicaid reimbursement rates that were lower for out-of-state
hospitals than for in-state hospitals.  Texarkana Memorial
Hospital, d/b/a Wadley Regional Medical Center, ("Wadley"), is an
out-of-state hospital that was affected by this plan.
     On April 8, 1996, Wadley filed a complaint before the Arkansas
Claims Commission against Ray Hanley in his official capacity as
Director of DHS.  In its complaint, Wadley alleged that the 1991-
1994 Medicaid reimbursement rates were invalid for several
reasons, and thus it was entitled to $2,835,828, which is the
amount the hospital would have received if it had been an in-state
Medicaid provider.  On April 26, 1996, DHS filed a motion to
dismiss Wadley's claim because the Commission did not have
jurisdiction to hear it.  The Commission denied DHS's motion on
September 11, 1996.
     In response, DHS filed in the Pulaski County Circuit Court a
petition for a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus ordering
the Claims Commission to dismiss Wadley's Medicaid claim.  The
trial court denied DHS's petitions on April 11, 1997.  In its
order, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to issue
either a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari to the Claims
Commission because it is an arm of the General Assembly.  The court
also found that even if it had jurisdiction, the writs were
inappropriate because DHS had an adequate remedy of appealing the
Commission's decision to the General Assembly.   
      On appeal, DHS raises several arguments as to whether the
Claims Commission has jurisdiction to hear Wadley's Medicaid claim. 
The trial court did not rule on this issue, and thus we are
precluded from considering it on appeal.  See McQuay v. Guntharp,
331 Ark. 466,    S.W.2d    (1998); Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287,
956 S.W.2d 150 (1997).  Instead, the trial court only ruled as to
whether it had jurisdiction to issue either a writ of mandamus or
a writ of certiorari to the Claims Commission.  Accordingly, we
will limit our review to these two issues.
                      I.   Writ of Mandamus
     The first issue is whether the trial court erred when it
denied DHS's petition for a writ of mandamus.  We will reverse a
trial court's ruling on a petition for a writ of mandamus only if
there has been an abuse of discretion.  Hicks v. Gravett, 312 Ark.
407,