Opinion ID: 2322414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpreting the Statutory Language

Text: Optometrists argue that the motion justice erred when he concluded that the funds that NHP used to pay for optometric services were private, rather than public, funds. When we construe a statute or ordinance, `our ultimate goal is to give effect to the purpose of the act as intended by the Legislature.' Ryan v. City of Providence, 11 A.3d 68, 70-71 (R.I. 2011) (quoting D'Amico, 866 A.2d at 1224). Nonetheless, [i]t is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. Id. at 71 (quoting Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I.1996)). This is particularly true where the Legislature has not defined or qualified the words used within the statute. D'Amico, 866 A.2d at 1224 (quoting Markham v. Allstate Insurance Co., 116 R.I. 152, 156, 352 A.2d 651, 654 (1976)). During the relevant period, the statute provided that where contracts call for the expenditure of public funds    for any purpose involving eye care, there shall be no discrimination as to the rate of reimbursement for the health care, whether provided by a doctor of optometry or physician providing like services. Section 5-35-21.1(b), as amended by P.L.1997, ch. 216, § 1, (emphasis added). The phrase public funds is not a defined term, either under this statute or any of the laws of Rhode Island. However, it is clear that elsewhere in the General Laws the phrase public funds is tied to payments made by either the state itself or by its agents. [11] This meaning is consistent with the common sense, dictionary definition of public with respect to expenditures. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 1836 (1971) (authorized or administered by or acting for the people as a political entity). Moreover, this reading of the phrase maintains the internal consistency of the statute, which explicitly distinguishes public funds from private funds in subsection (a). Ambiguity exists only when a word or phrase in a statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable meaning. See Unistrut Corp. v. State Department of Labor and Training, 922 A.2d 93, 100 (R.I.2007). In our opinion, the statute at issue is not ambiguous. [12]