Opinion ID: 2637516
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remand for Hearing

Text: SHMC filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the district court should deem its application for county assistance approved because of Boundary County's failure to act, pursuant to I.C. § 31-3511(4). Boundary County alleges that it followed the dictates of I.C. § 31-3511(2) in processing and returning SHMC's application. Boundary County requested that the district court dismiss this action or in the alternative, deny the motion for summary judgment and remand the matter to the Board of County Commissioners for a hearing to determine indigency on the merits. The district court determined that, by returning SHMC's application, Boundary County acted on the application, I believe that they acted erroneously, and the relief available is a remand to the county commissioners for a hearing. The district court further concluded that Boundary County acted in a timely fashion, but it acted erroneously in that the County deprived SHMC of the hearing to which it was entitled. Boundary County responded to SHMC's July 14 application by letter dated July 25. The County's letter returning the application and refusing to process the application is sufficient to constitute a denial of the SHMC's application. This handling of the claim by the County is clearly within the fifteen-day requirement of I.C. § 31-3505C. Boundary County cited to I.C. § 31-3511(2) that it was unable to process SHMC's application because it lacked jurisdiction to hear and approve the application. Although the County's conclusion may be an erroneous application of the jurisdictional provision, the County clearly acted upon SHMC's application within the applicable time parameters. This is not the case where the County failed to act upon SHMC's application altogether and does not require the County or the district court to deem the application approved in accordance with I.C. § 31-3511(4). This Court holds that Boundary County acted upon SHMC's application within the time parameters set forth in I.C. § 31-3505. Further, this Court affirms the district court's remand of the case to the Board of County Commissioners for an indigency determination on Edwina H.'s application. SHMC requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to I.C. §§ 12-117 and 12-121, and pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. Boundary County requests attorney fees on appeal as well. Idaho Code § 12-117 allows attorney fees in proceedings involving as adverse parties a county and another party. The statute allows the Court to award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and reasonable expenses, if the court finds that the party against whom the judgment is rendered acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law. I.C. § 12-117. Idaho Code § 12-121 also allows an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Because the appeal has required this Court to interpret I.C. § 31-3505 for the first time within the context of the facts of this case, neither party is awarded fees. Win of Michigan, Inc. v. Yreka United, Inc., 137 Idaho 747, 754-55, 53 P.3d 330, 337-38 (2002).