In re Guillemette

171 N.H. 565

199 A.3d 735

PETITION OF Kyle GUILLEMETTE

(New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services )

No. 2018-0092

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: October 24, 2018

Opinion Issued: December 7, 2018

Disability Rights Center-NH, of Concord (James Ziegra on the brief and orally), for the petitioner.

Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., of Concord (Karyn P. Forbes and Alexander W. Campbell on the brief, and Ms. Forbes orally), for Monadnock Worksource.

John D. MacIntosh, P.C., of Concord (John D. MacIntosh on the memorandum of law), for Monadnock Developmental Services.

Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general (Laura E. B. Lombardi, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Developmental Services.

HICKS, J.

In this petition for a writ of certiorari, see Sup. Ct. R. 11, the petitioner, Kyle Guillemette, challenges the determination by the Administrative Appeals Unit (AAU) of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that the notice requirements set forth in RSA 171-A:8, III (2014) and New Hampshire Administrative Rules, He-M 310.07 did not apply when Monadnock Worksource (Worksource) notified Monadnock Developmental Services (MDS) of its intent to discontinue providing services to the petitioner because that act did not constitute a "termination" of services within the meaning of the applicable rules. Because we conclude that the AAU's ruling is not erroneous, we affirm.

I. Facts

The AAU found, or the certified record supports, the following relevant facts. The petitioner receives developmental disability services funded by the developmental disability Medicaid waiver program. MDS is the "area agency," which coordinates and develops the petitioner's individual service plan. See RSA 171-A:2, I-b (2014) (defining an "area agency" as a "nonprofit corporation ... established by rules adopted by the commissioner [of DHHS] to provide services to developmentally disabled persons"); see also Petition of Sawyer, 170 N.H. 197, 199, 167 A.3d 622 (2017) (describing area agencies). Worksource is a "provider agency." N.H. Admin. R., He-M 310.02(v) (defining "provider agency").

Worksource provides services to disabled individuals pursuant to a "Master Agreement" with MDS. Worksource began providing day services to the petitioner in August 2012. There is no indication in the record that Worksource provided any other services to the petitioner. On March 31, 2017, Worksource notified MDS, in writing, that Worksource was terminating services to the petitioner "as of midnight on April 30." The letter to MDS stated that "[t]he Board of Directors and administration of ... Worksource feel this action is in the best interest of [the petitioner] and of [Worksource]." The petitioner's mother, who serves as his guardian, was informed by MDS of Worksource's decision on April 3.

On April 12, the petitioner's mother wrote to Worksource, asking it to reconsider its decision to terminate services. In an April 18 letter, Worksource's executive director declined that request, stating: "As you, the guardian, have repeatedly and recently expressed such deep dissatisfaction with our services to your son, the Board and I feel that you and [the petitioner] would be better served by another agency ...." Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of Client and Legal Services alleging that his services had been terminated improperly and requesting that they remain in place pending the outcome of the investigation of his complaint. See RSA 171-A:19 (2014) (establishing the client and legal services office); see also N.H. Admin. R., He-M 310.07(e) (providing that services must remain in place while a client's appeal of a provider agency's termination of services is pending). The petitioner simultaneously appealed Worksource's decision to the AAU.

The Office of Client and Legal Services investigator determined that Worksource was required to follow the applicable rules when terminating services to a client, and that Worksource had failed to comply with them. In his written report, the investigator stated that the executive director of Worksource "acknowledged that ... [Worksource] mistakenly did not follow the termination process under [the rules] ..., but issued a letter to MDS indicating that [it was] terminating [the petitioner's] day services. She explained that the contract with MDS is what [Worksource] used as the authority for terminating services." The investigator reasoned that because "Worksource, as a provider agency of MDS, has to follow the [rules] to terminate services, and admittedly did not, the complaint is substantiated." Worksource declined to accept the investigator's determination and asked that the matter be referred to the Bureau of Developmental Services (Bureau) for review. The Bureau overturned the investigator's determination.

The petitioner appealed the Bureau's decision to the AAU. His appeal of the Bureau's decision was consolidated with his earlier appeal of Worksource's decision. In ruling in favor of Worksource, the AAU assumed without deciding that, "as a provider agency[,] Worksource [is] bound by the requirements set forth" in the applicable rules. However, the AAU determined that those requirements did not apply because Worksource did not "terminate" services to the petitioner within the meaning of the applicable rules. The AAU denied the petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration, and this petition for a writ of certiorari followed.

II. Analysis

A. Standards of Review

A petition for a writ of certiorari is the only mechanism for review of a fair hearings decision issued by the AAU. See Petition of Sawyer, 170 N.H. at 202, 167 A.3d 622. "Review on certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, usually available only in the absence of a right to appeal, and only at the discretion of the court." Id. (quotation omitted). "Our review of an AAU decision on a petition for writ of certiorari entails examination of whether the AAU acted illegally with respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law or has unsustainably exercised its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously." Id. (quotation omitted). "We exercise our power to grant such writs sparingly and only where to do otherwise would result in substantial injustice." Id. (quotation omitted).

This case requires us to interpret the statutes and regulations governing services to developmentally disabled individuals. We review the AAU's statutory and regulatory interpretation de novo. Id. at 203, 167 A.3d 622. "We use the same principles of construction when interpreting both statutes and regulations." Appeal of Michele, 168 N.H. 98, 102, 123 A.3d 255 (2015) (quotation omitted). Thus, "[i]n construing rules, as in construing statutes, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used." Doe v. N.H. Dep't of Safety, 160 N.H. 474, 477, 999 A.2d 362 (2010) (quotation omitted). We interpret legislative or administrative intent from the statute or rule as written and will not consider what the legislature or administrative agency might have said or add language that the legislature or administrative agency did not see fit to include. See Appeal of Michele, 168 N.H. at 102, 123 A.3d 255. We construe all parts of a statute or regulation together to effectuate their overall purposes and avoid absurd or unjust results. See id. Thus, we look at the regulatory or statutory scheme "as a whole, and not piecemeal." Petition of Parker, 158 N.H. 499, 502, 969 A.2d 322 (2009). Moreover, we do not consider words and phrases in isolation, but rather within the context of the statute or regulation as a whole. See Appeal of Michele, 168 N.H. at 102, 123 A.3d 255. Additionally, when the language of a statute or regulation is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute or regulation itself for further indications of legislative or administrative intent. See id.

B. Standing

Before addressing the merits of this case, we briefly consider the Bureau's assertion that the petitioner lacks standing. See Duncan v. State, 166 N.H. 630, 640, 102 A.3d 913 (2014) (explaining that "standing is a question of subject matter jurisdiction"). "Standing under the New Hampshire Constitution requires parties to have personal legal or equitable rights that are adverse to one another, with regard to an actual, not hypothetical, dispute, which is capable of judicial redress." State v. Actavis Pharma, 170 N.H. 211, 214, 167 A.3d 1277 (2017) (quotation and brackets omitted).¹ Here, the petitioner asserts that he did not receive the notice to which he argues he was entitled under RSA 170-A:8, III and Rule 310.07. His claim is sufficient to confer standing.

C. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

We begin by reviewing the statutory and regulatory framework governing the provision of services to developmentally disabled individuals, such as the petitioner. DHHS is responsible for maintaining, coordinating, and supervising the state's developmental services delivery system pursuant to RSA chapter 171-A. See Petition of Sawyer, 170 N.H. at 199, 167 A.3d 622 ; see also RSA 171-A:1, :4 (2014). The state service delivery system comprises "a comprehensive array of services for the diagnosis, evaluation, habilitation and rehabilitation of developmentally disabled persons, including ... service coordination, community living arrangements, employment and day services," and family supports. RSA 171-A:2, XVI (2014).

The stated policy of RSA chapter 171-A "is that persons with developmental disabilities and their families be provided services that emphasize community living." RSA 171-A:1 Introductory Language. Such services must be based upon the participation of disabled individuals "and their families in decisions concerning necessary, desirable, and appropriate services, recognizing that they are best able to determine their own needs."

RSA...