Title: STATE EX REL DEPT SOC REHAB S

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13082 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 19 7 5 T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A , EX REL, T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, P e t i t i o n e r , ROSE C O L E and S H A R O N VJNGOM, Individually and on behalf of a l l others s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For P e t i t i o n e r : Thomas H. Mahan argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents : James Dorr Johnson argued, Butte, Montana Stephen L. Bunch argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : J u l y 16, 1975 Decided: $lJ!,gX 1975 Filed : i L L b j qgq5 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n which p e t i t i o n e r sought an appropriate w r i t t o review the proceedings i n a case pending i n the d i s t r i c t court of Silver B o w County e n t i t l e d : Rose Cole, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s v. Theodore Carkulis, Director, e t a l . , Defendants, wherein a temporary restraining order was issued on the 30th day of June, 1975, which order restrained petitioner from implementing and operating c e r t a i n emergency r u l e s u n t i l further order of the court, and a l s o provided t h a t notice be given by the petitioner t o a l l Medicaid providers and recipients t h a t the Medicaid program would operate a t pre-July 1, 1975 levels u n t i l the further order of the court. Petitioner further alleged t h a t the 1975 Legislature cut the amount of money requested by petitioner by the approxi- mate sum of $1,600,000 f o r the biennium, and t o meet such budgetary cut it would be necesssary t o c u r t a i l some of the programs which would be of l e a s t harm t o the welfare recipients. Further, t h a t delay i n the f i n a l resolution of t h i s matter would cause a state-wide emergency of major proportions,.and t h a t since it was a l s o alleged t h a t no questions of f a c t need be determined, an expeditious consideration of the matter would be i n the in- t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e and a l l e v i a t e continued hardship which may be suffered by a l l recipients of welfare i n t h i s s t a t e . Counsel was heard ex parte, t h e matter taken under advisement, and t h e r e a f t e r an order was issued c a l l i n g f o r an adversary hearing and vacating the temporary restraining order of the d i s t r i c t court u n t i l the further order of t h i s Court. The adversary hearing was held, b r i e f s f i l e d , counsel heard i n o r a l argument, and the matter submitted f o r decision. It i s not disputed t h a t the 1975 Legislature reduced the amount of money requested by p e t i t i o n e r i n the approximate amount of $1,600,000 f o r the biennium and t h a t i t would be necessary t o make adjustments so that the Department could l i v e within i t s budget. Following consultations with i t s advisory council, t h e Department of Health, Education and Welfare of the Federal Government, with persons i n the medical f i e l d , and the experience of the Department and i t s s t a f f , it was determined t h a t it would be necessary t o c u t approximately $300,000 per month from i t s programs t o stay within t h e budget. To meet t h i s s i t u a t i o n the Department determined t o c u r t a i l the medically needy program i n Montana, as s e t f o r t h i n section 71-1516, R.C.M. 1947, under authority of section 71-1517, R.C.M. 1947. A n emergency r u l e was adopted and steps taken t o e s t a b l i s h a regular rule. The Department f e l t t h a t the emer- gency r u l e was necessary because i t could not exceed 120 days i n duration and it would give the Department an opportunity t o complete the action necessary t o e s t a b l i s h a regular r u l e , without l o s s of funds. The hearing on the regular r u l e i s s e t f o r August 15, 1975, a t Helena, Montana, a t which time a l l persons and groups affected can be heard and such evidence w i l l be con- sidered by t h e Department before f i n a l adoption of a regular rule. Respondents contend t h e "emergency" claimed by the Department i s not a legitimate basis f o r an emergency r u l e and t h i s was the reason f o r the commencement of the action i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. Amicus Curiae, Administrative Code Committee of the Montana Legislature, takes no position on the respective merits of the p a r t i e s ' positions herein, but requests t h i s Court t o e s t a b l i s h precedents a s guidelines under the Administrative Pro- cedure Act. However, it does not appear t h a t t h i s o r i g i n a l proceeding i s a proper forum and being aware of the necessity f o r immediate action we decline t o do so. The s t a t u t e dealing with an emergency r u l e i s section 82-4204, R.C.M. 1947, which provides i n subsection (2) : "(2) I f an agency finds t h a t an imminent p e r i l t o the public health, safety o r welfare requires adoption of a r u l e upon fewer than twenty (20) days' notice and s t a t e s i n writing i t s reasons f o r t h a t finding, it may proceed, without prior notice o r hearing o r upon any abbreviated notice and hearing t h a t it finds practicable, t o adopt an emergency r u l e . The r u l e may be e f f e c t i v e f o r a period not longer than one hundred and twenty (120) days, but the adoption of an i d e n t i c a l r u l e under subsections (1) (a) and (1) (b) of t h i s section i s not precluded. The sufficiency of the reasons f o r a finding of imminent p e r i l t o the public health, s a f e t y o r welfare s h a l l be subject t o j u d i c i a l review. 11 W e have been favored with voluminous b r i e f s and extensive arguments a s t o what i s "an imminent p e r i l t o the public health, safety o r welfare. I I Upon review of the admitted f a c t s , the statutory law, consideration of t h e b r i e f s , and arguments of counsel, i t i s our holding t h a t the circumstances existing here e n t i t l e d t h e Depart- ment t o enact an emergency rule. It i s therefore ORDERED t h a t the temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order of the d i s t r i c t court issued on June 30, 1975, which by t h i s Court's order of July 7, 1975, was vacated u n t i l the fur- ther order of t h i s Court, is now permanently vacated and s e t aside. Further, action. W e Concur: ' Justices. fl - 4 -