Opinion ID: 1239050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Definition of the class

Text: The superior court redefined the class in 1994 as all persons who are past, present and future beneficiaries of the mental health lands trust created by Congress in the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956. The beneficiaries are residents of the State of Alaska who are mentally ill, mentally defective or retarded, chronically alcoholic suffering from psychoses, senile and as a result of such senility suffer major mental illness, and such other persons needing mental health services as the legislature may determine. The trial court ordered this redefinition on the motion of Weiss and AMHA to make the class co-extensive with the beneficiaries of the trust as determined by the superior court's Beneficiary Decision in 1988. Weiss argues that the superior court's Beneficiary Decision erroneously included the developmentally disabled [29] as beneficiaries of the trust and hence members of the class. The superior court based its Beneficiary Decision on a review of the legislative history of the AMHEA. The court concluded, and Weiss does not dispute, that the version of the bill originally passed by the House included the developmentally disabled as beneficiaries of the trust. Weiss asserts, however, that the Senate disagreed that they should be included. As evidence for this position, he relies on a comment made by the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Senator Jackson, that [t]here are a lot of people who are mentally retarded that should not be under the provision of this bill. The context of this remark, however, suggests that Senator Jackson was concerned that inclusion of the developmentally disabled under the AMHEA's definition of mentally ill might lead to their imprisonment or stigmatization, not that he felt they should be excluded as beneficiaries. Furthermore, Senator Jackson never came to a conclusion on the matter; after a brief exchange, he merely states, I do not know. My mind is open.... His statement thus provides no evidence of legislative intent to exclude the developmentally disabled as beneficiaries of the trust. Weiss also argues that the Senate's refusal to adopt language suggested by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) demonstrates its intent not to include the developmentally disabled. The proposed language would have replaced the phrase mentally ill in the House version of AMHEA § 202(e) with the phrase the mental health program of Alaska, including (but not by way of limitation) the out-patient and inpatient care and treatment of the mentally ill, and of the mentally defective and mentally retarded, of Alaska. The version of the AMHEA finally passed by the Senate retained the phrase mental health program, but dropped the remainder of HEW's proposed language. The report by the House managers noted the difference between the House version, defining the phrase mentally ill to include the developmentally disabled, and the Senate version, using the phrase mental health program with no definition. The managers stated that they accepted this Senate amendment which broadens the use of the revenues for use of the Alaska mentalhealth program rather than for the hospitalization and care of the mentally ill in Alaska. Because the House version included the developmentally disabled, the superior court reasonably concluded that a version that broadens the program would also include those individuals. Moreover, the relatively vague phrase mental health program does not support an intent by the Senate to exclude potential beneficiary groups. The Senate's decision not to adopt the rest of HEW's proposed amendment shows little more than a desire to avoid cumbersome and unnecessary language. The superior court's conclusion is also supported by other parts of the AMHEA. Along with the land grant, the AMHEA provided for grants to the Territory of Alaska to assist it to carry out plans, submitted by the Governor of the Territory or his designee and approved by the Surgeon General, for an integrated mental health program for the Territory, including outpatient and inpatient care and treatment. AMHEA § 201. This suggests that Congress intended the meaning of the term mental health program to be determined by the Territory and the Surgeon General. The superior court found, and Weiss does not dispute, that the first mental health program enacted by the Territory in 1957 defined mentally ill individual as an individual having a psychiatric or other disease or senile changes which substantially impair his mental health or who is mentally deficient. The superior court also noted that one impetus for passage of the AMHEA was to end the need for placing Alaskans with mental problems in Morningside Hospital in Portland. These Alaskans included the developmentally disabled. Therefore, we hold that the superior court did not err in determining that Congress intended the developmentally disabled to be beneficiaries of the trust and hence members of the plaintiff class in this litigation.