Court Opinion

ID: 9371149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:09:55.645454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.868117
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Recovery                      :
Organizations Alliance Inc.,               :
                   Petitioner              :
                                           :
              v.                           : No. 30 M.D. 2022
                                           : Submitted: November 23, 2022
Department of Drug and Alcohol             :
Programs of the Commonwealth of            :
Pennsylvania,                              :
                  Respondent               :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
              HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                                   FILED: February 15, 2023

              Pennsylvania Recovery Organizations Alliance, Inc. (Recovery
Alliance) has filed a petition for review seeking to enjoin certain actions of the
Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(Department). Recovery Alliance asserts that the Department has delegated a
governmental function to a private entity and promulgated a regulation without
following the mandatory procedures therefor. Before the Court is the Department’s
preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer that seeks the petition’s dismissal.1
For the reasons that follow, we overrule the preliminary objection.

1
  Recovery Alliance filed an initial petition for review on January 24, 2022, and an amended
petition for review on March 21, 2022. The preliminary objection concerns the amended petition
for review, which is referenced herein as either “petition for review” or “amended petition for
review.”
              The “Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs” was created in 2010
by amendment to The Administrative Code of 1929.2 This amendment tasked the
Department with establishing “a State plan for the control, prevention, intervention,
treatment, rehabilitation, research, education and training aspects of drug and
alcohol abuse and dependence problems.” Section 2301-A(1) of The Administrative
Code of 1929, 71 P.S. §613.1(1). Specifically, the Department has been directed to
establish licensing standards for “private and public treatment and rehabilitative
facilities,” which includes their personnel.            Section 2301-A(1)(xviii) of The
Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. §613.1(1)(xviii). The Department must
establish training programs for professional and nonprofessional personnel in such
facilities and must organize and participate in programs of public education. Section
2301-A(1)(xiv) of The Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. §613.1(1)(xiv). To
that end, the Department is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations. Section
2301-A(9) of The Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. §613.1(9).
              Recovery Alliance is a non-profit community organization that
supports individuals in addiction recovery and educates the public on addiction and
recovery. Recovery Alliance is staffed by and for persons in substance abuse
recovery. Its stated mission is “to advocate and educate” and “eliminate the stigma
and discrimination” towards those with substance abuse problems, with the aim of
ensuring health, hope, and justice for those in recovery. Amended Petition for
Review, ¶1.      Recovery Alliance provides no direct treatment or state-funded
recovery support services. Id.

2
 Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended, added by the Act of July 9, 2010, P.L. 348, 71 P.S.
§§613.1-613.19.
                                               2
                 To advance its mission, Recovery Alliance has developed curricula for
those seeking to become credentialed as a Certified Recovery Specialist (CRS) or a
Certified Family Recovery Specialist (CFRS) (together, Recovery Specialist).
Recovery Alliance provides training to private organizations, academic groups,
county governments, and other community organizations, including those in
marginalized and low-income communities. Amended Petition for Review, ¶3. In
2008 and 2009, Recovery Alliance spearheaded an effort to create a first-of-its-kind
Recovery Specialist credential by bringing together recovery community
organizations, with funding provided by counties and by the Department of Health,
Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs.3 Id., ¶4. Out of this effort came Recovery
Alliance’s Recovery Specialist credential, which included “core competencies.” Id.,
¶5.

                 The Pennsylvania Certification Board (PCB)4 is a private, non-profit
corporation that credentials a variety of behavioral health professionals, including
Recovery Specialists. Notably, the core competencies created by Recovery Alliance

3
    The Bureau’s duties were later absorbed by the Department after its creation in 2010.
4
    PCB describes itself as
         a private, non-profit corporation offering voluntary credentialing to behavioral and
         community health professionals. PCB implements standards and testing for
         certification of addiction counselors, prevention specialists, clinical supervisors,
         auxiliary professionals, recovery and peer specialists, family recovery specialists,
         intervention professionals, and community health workers.

        PCB is dedicated to public protection by establishing and monitoring certification
        standards for professionals in the behavioral and community health fields in
        addition to providing management and consultation services.
https://www.pacertboard.org/about (last visited February 14, 2023).
                                                  3
have been included in the Recovery Specialist credential offered by other
associations, including PCB. Amended Petition for Review, ¶5.

              PCB suggested that the Department increase the training requirements
for Recovery Specialists, asserting that there were ethical concerns about those who
were currently credentialed. Amended Petition for Review, ¶6. The Department
responded by authorizing PCB to “take control” of the training standards for a
Recovery Specialist credential and provided the funding for that undertaking. Id.,
¶7. These training standards became the private property of PCB, which was given
the exclusive right to offer training statewide. Id. The Department’s appointment
of PCB abrogated existing training curricula, including those of Recovery Alliance.
Id., ¶9. By authorizing PCB to expand and standardize the Recovery Specialist
credential, the Department gave PCB the authority to modify the certification
requirements at will and “to erect barriers to entering the addiction treatment
workforce[.]” Id., ¶24.
              Recovery Alliance filed a petition for review seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. It contends that the Department has improperly promulgated a
binding regulation and delegated governmental responsibilities to a private entity,
i.e., PCB, whose training requirements now have the force of law and are non-
negotiable. However, before it can require the exclusive use of PCB-promulgated
Recovery Specialist training requirements, the Department must comply with the
Commonwealth Documents Law,5 the Regulatory Review Act,6 and the
Commonwealth Attorneys Act.7 Instead, the Department’s adoption of the PCB-

5
  Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 769, as amended, 45 P.S. §§1102-1602, and 45 Pa. C.S. §§501-907.
6
  Act of June 25, 1982, P.L. 633, as amended, 71 P.S. §§745.1.-745.14.
7
  Act of October 15, 1980, P.L. 950, as amended, 71 P.S. §§732-101-732-506.
                                              4
promulgated Recovery Specialist training requirements circumvents the regulatory
review process and constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of a governmental
responsibility to a private entity. Amended Petition for Review, ¶¶29-72.
             Recovery Alliance asks this Court to declare the Department’s
transition to PCB-promulgated training requirements to constitute a rulemaking
subject to the Commonwealth Documents Law, the Regulatory Review Act, and the
Commonwealth Attorneys Act and an unlawful delegation of governmental power
to PCB. It requests an injunction to reinstate the status quo ante that existed prior
to the PCB-promulgated training programs, until such time as the Department may
duly promulgate a regulation. Amended Petition for Review at 27-28.
             In response, the Department filed a preliminary objection in the nature
of a demurrer. It contends that the Department has not promulgated a regulation or
delegated its function to a private entity. In support, the Department explains that it
does not certify or train Recovery Specialists, let alone require Recovery Specialist
certification or training by PCB, or any entity, as a condition of receiving funding
from the Department. Further, the Department’s contract for services from PCB did
not establish a binding norm.      The Department argues that “[f]unding PCB’s
development of a standardized training curriculum for CRSs” cannot be considered
a delegation of a governmental function to a private entity because there is no
credential required for Recovery Specialists.       Department Brief at 14.       The
Department has merely contracted with a private entity to offer a training program.
             In considering the Department’s preliminary objection under Pa.
R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4) (demurrer), this Court must consider as true all well-pleaded
material facts set forth in the petition for review and all reasonable inferences that
may be drawn from those facts. Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth.

                                          5
2010). We “need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from
facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion.”       Id.   To sustain
preliminary objections, “it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit
recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them.” Id.
             In short, to sustain the Department’s demurrer we must accept as true
the allegations of Recovery Alliance and, then, conclude that there is no legal basis
upon which Recovery Alliance may prevail. Recovery Alliance argues that the
Department’s arguments in support of a demurrer are premised on facts contrary to
Recovery Alliance’s averments and supporting exhibits.           For example, the
Department argues that funding to facilities is not tied to the use of PCB’s
credentialing system and that the PCB credentialing system was created solely for
PCB. Recovery Alliance contends it would be improper for this Court to grant the
Department’s preliminary objection where such factual disagreements exist.
             Recovery Alliance’s petition for review asserts that the Department has
created a binding norm without adhering to the requirements for promulgating a
regulation. The Department acknowledges that “[a] regulation has the effect of a
‘binding norm.’”     Department Brief at 10 (quoting Shrom v. Pennsylvania
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board, 261 A.3d 1082, 1093 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021), appeal granted, 272 A.3d 1290 (Pa. 2022)). To determine whether
an agency has attempted to establish a binding norm, we consider the language of
the norm, the manner of implementation, and whether it restricts the agency’s
discretion. Northwestern Youth Services, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare, 1
A.3d 988, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), affirmed, 66 A.3d 301 (Pa. 2013).

                                         6
            In Northwestern Youth Services, we explained the difference between
a regulation, which creates a binding norm, and a statement of policy, which does
not. Quoting our Supreme Court, we stated:
            The critical distinction between a substantive rule and a general
            statement of policy is the different practical effect that these two
            types of pronouncements have in subsequent administrative
            proceedings . . . . A properly adopted substantive rule establishes
            a standard of conduct which has the force of law . . . .
            A general statement of policy, on the other hand, does not
            establish a ‘binding norm’ . . . . A policy statement announces
            the agency’s tentative intentions for the future.

Id. (quoting Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Norristown Area School
District, 374 A.2d 671, 679 (Pa. 1977)). A binding norm is a regulation. Eastwood
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center v. Department of Public Welfare, 910 A.2d 134,
144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (internal citation omitted).
            The Department argues that its licensing regulations “do not impose
qualification requirements for non-clinical positions,” such as Recovery Specialist.
Department Preliminary Objection, ¶18. In addition, the Department does not
require a “CRS” or “CFRS” to undergo any training. Id., ¶23. The Department
argues that Recovery Alliance may continue to use its approved training without any
interference, permission, or interaction of any kind from the Department or PCB.
Id., ¶21. The Department contends that it is not required to promulgate a regulation
to hire a vendor to develop and provide training for Recovery Specialists.
            The amended petition for review includes a February 10, 2021, e-mail
from PCB’s Director of Training and Education, Deborah Hass, to the Department’s
Chief of Training, Tim Rader. It states as follows:
            PCB is pleased to announce the new standardized Recovery
            Specialist initial training is being scheduled at locations across

                                         7
             the Commonwealth. This curriculum is required for all who are
             interested in obtaining the [CRS] or [CFRS] credentials.

Amended Petition for Review, Exhibit D (emphasis added). When reviewing
preliminary objections, the Court may consider the facts pled in the complaint as
well as “documents or exhibits attached to it.” Allen v. Department of Corrections,
103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
             The above-quoted e-mail specifically states that the PCB curriculum is
“required for all” seeking to be a credentialed recovery specialist. Amended Petition
for Review, Exhibit D. This email together with the allegations in the amended
petition for review support the claim of Recovery Alliance that the Department has
established a binding norm under the analytical framework of Northwestern Youth
Services, 1 A.3d at 993. It cannot be said with certainty that the Department’s action
did not require a regulation promulgated in accordance with the Commonwealth
Documents Law, the Regulatory Review Act, and the Commonwealth Attorneys
Act.
             The Department contends that Recovery Alliance failed to raise any
legally sufficient claim in its petition for review. In its brief in support of its
demurrer, the Department framed the issue as follows: “Whether the Amended
Petition [for Review] fails to identify action by [the Department] that amounts to a
binding norm or delegation of authority, therefore precluding [Recovery Alliance’s]
claims?” Department Brief at 3 (emphasis added). Recovery Alliance is only
required to make out a viable legal claim in regard to one of the Department actions
to defeat the Department’s demurrer.          Accordingly, we need not address the

                                          8
Department’s demurrer to Recovery Alliance’s claim that the Department has
improperly delegated its authority to PCB.8
               For the above reasons, we overrule the Department’s preliminary
objection and direct it to answer Recovery Alliance’s amended petition for review.

                                _____________________________________________
                                MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

8
  The legislature requires “a State plan for the control, prevention, intervention, treatment,
rehabilitation, research, education and training aspects of drug and alcohol abuse and dependence
problems,” under Section 2301-A(1) of The Administrative Code of 1929, 71 P.S. §613.1(1)
(emphasis added). Recovery Alliance asserts that the Department has delegated its responsibility
with respect to the training of personnel involved with the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse to
PCB. At this juncture, the assertion cannot be easily dismissed.

                                                9
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Recovery                 :
Organizations Alliance Inc.,          :
                   Petitioner         :
                                      :
            v.                        : No. 30 M.D. 2022
                                      :
Department of Drug and Alcohol        :
Programs of the Commonwealth of       :
Pennsylvania,                         :
                  Respondent          :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2023, the preliminary objection
of the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to the amended petition for review filed by Pennsylvania Recovery
Organizations Alliance Inc. is OVERRULED. The Department of Drug and Alcohol
Programs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is directed to file an answer to the
amended petition for review within 30 days of the date of this Order.

                           ____________________________________________
                           MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita