Opinion ID: 2598187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mercy's request to the Panel was proper.

Text: The Board argues that Mercy's request to the Panel was improper because, pursuant to I.C. § 31-3551, the Panel can only review resource determinations. Since Koeppen did not cooperate, the Board reasons, it could not determine his indigency status and the Board's decision did not address resources. As the Panel could not conduct an analysis of the resources available to the applicant because there were no factual findings regarding resources in the Board's decision, the Board argues the case was not appropriately before the Panel. Moreover, the Board asserts, pre-litigation screening is only mandatory for those claims arising out of contested resource availability; therefore, it concludes, Mercy's request to the Board was improper and Mercy had only twenty-eight days from the date the Board issued its decision in which to file an appeal. Mercy points out that it contested the Board's decision that it had insufficient information regarding resources and believes the Board had sufficient information to determine resources; additionally, the Board did not object in any way to Mercy requesting pre-litigation screening before the Panel. The interpretation of a statute is an issue of law over which this Court exercises free review. Carrier v. Lake Pend Oreille Sch. Dist. No. 84, 142 Idaho 804, 807, 134 P.3d 655, 658 (2006) (citing Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 138 Idaho 244, 246, 61 P.3d 601, 603 (2002)). We must construe a statute to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Ada County Bd. of Equalization v. Highlands, Inc., 141 Idaho 202, 207, 108 P.3d 349, 354 (2005). When construing a statute, this Court will not deal in any subtle refinements of the legislation, but will ascertain and give effect to the purpose and intent of the legislature, based on the whole act and every word therein, lending substance and meaning to the provisions. Ada County Assessor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, 123 Idaho 425, 428, 849 P.2d 98, 101 (1993). Idaho counties furnishing care to eligible medically indigent persons are required to provide an advisory panel in the nature of a special civil grand jury and procedure for prelitigation consideration of claims arising out of contested resource availability of persons applying for indigent relief. I.C. § 31-3551. [1] The use of this panel is compulsory. Id. The panel is charged with rendering opinions where the resource eligibility of applicants . . . has been contested. Id. Moreover, this panel will consider the eligibility of applicants on claims referred to them and render written opinions regarding such eligibility . . . based upon review of analysis of the resources available to the applicant. . . . I.C. § 31-3553. Also, the panel shall indicate . . . whether the applicant appears to have resources available to him or her sufficient to pay for necessary medical services; does not have adequate resources; or any comments or observations which may be relevant and appropriate. Id. The panel's findings are to be used by affected parties in resolving contested claims in a manner consistent with the findings presented. Id. The plain language of I.C. §§ 31-3551 and 31-3553, two statutes governing the Panel's review, dictates that the Panel may only review decisions dealing with financial resources. To accept the Board's interpretation would render an entire category of decisions regarding the patient's resources (those where the Board has determined there is insufficient information to determine resources) as outside of the Panel's jurisdiction. This flies in the face of the legislative intent to provide applicants with advisory opinions to use when resolving claims. I.C. § 31-3553. The Board concluded that Koeppen did not complete an interview or cooperate in the application process. However, it also concluded that there was insufficient information to determine if other resources are available to pay for the requested medical services [and there is] insufficient information to determine [Koeppen's] medical indigency status. The Board's decision here dealt with resources. Therefore, we hold that the case was properly presented to the Panel.