Aldamuy v. Pirro

• Decision Date: 05 April 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-CV-204.,76-CV-204.
• Citation: Aldamuy v. Pirro, 436 F.Supp. 1005 (N.D. N.Y. 1977)
• Parties: Humbert ALDAMUY, Karl Newton, M.D., Henry Jackson, Ruben Cowart, D.D.S., Upstate Coalition on Minority Health, Plaintiffs, v. Nicholas PIRRO, Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency, Michael O. Sawyer, Onondaga County Nominating Committee Health Systems Agency Development Task Force, John Abbott and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph F. Califano, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

436 F. Supp. 1005

Humbert ALDAMUY, Karl Newton, M.D., Henry Jackson, Ruben Cowart, D.D.S., Upstate Coalition on Minority Health, Plaintiffs, v.Nicholas PIRRO, Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency, Michael O. Sawyer, Onondaga County Nominating Committee Health Systems Agency Development Task Force, John Abbott and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph F. Califano, Defendants.

No. 76-CV-204.

United States District Court, N. D. New York.

April 5, 1977.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Crystal, Manes & Rifken, Syracuse, N. Y., for plaintiffs; Sidney L. Manes, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.

Paul V. French, U. S. Atty., N. D. N. Y., Albany, N. Y., for defendants; Borge Varmer, Regional Atty., Region II, Winifred M. Nash, Asst. Regional Atty., Dept. of HEW, New York City, Joseph R. Matthews, Asst. U. S. Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

PORT, District Judge.

NATURE OF PARTICULAR PROCEEDING

Plaintiffs brought this action to challenge the appointment of two individuals to the Board of Directors of the Central New York Health Systems Agency.The defendant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, has moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.The motion of the Secretary to dismiss for failure to state a claim is well-grounded.Since no independent jurisdictional grounds exist as to the remaining defendants, the action against all remaining defendants is dismissed sua sponte.

FACTS

The Health Systems Agency.

The National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974¹(the Act) was enacted "to facilitate the development of recommendations for a national health planning policy and, to augment areawide and State planning for health services . . .."42 U.S.C. § 300k(b).Pursuant to the Act, the United States was divided up into numerous geographic areas called Health Service Areas.42 U.S.C. § 300l.For each Health Service Area there was to be one Health Systems Agency(HSA) which would be responsible for providing "effective health planning for its health service area".42 U.S.C. § 300l-2(a)(4).The Act further provided that each HSA shall have a governing body which would essentially be responsible for the administration of the HSA.

The Act contains a number of requirements concerning the composition of the governing body of the HSA.Inter alia it provides that:

(C) The membership of the governing body and the executive committee (if any) of an agency shall meet the following requirements:

(i) A majority (but not more than 60 per centum of the members) shall be residents of the health service area served by the entity who are consumers of health care and who are not (nor within the twelve months preceding appointment been) providers of health care and who are broadly representative of the social, economic, linguistic and racial populations, geographic areas of the health service area, and major purchasers of health care.

42 U.S.C. § 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(i).The Act then requires that the remainder of the members shall be health care providers representing a variety of professions and institutions.Id.§ 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(ii).It is further specifically required that the membership include "public elected officials and other representatives of governmental authorities"Id. at § 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(iii)(I), in the health service area along with a representative percentage of individuals who reside in non-metropolitan areas.Id.§ 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(iii)(II).

The Central New York Health Systems Agency.

A plan dividing New York State into eight health service areas was approved by the Secretary on September 2, 1975.²This dispute involves Area III, an eleven county region in Central New York.³After the publication of federal regulations concerning the selection, designation and composition of governing bodies of health systems agencies,⁴ a Task Force for the Development of a Health Systems Agency(Task Force) convened in Syracuse for Area III.The Task Force applied to the Secretary for designation of Central New York Health Systems Agency(CNYHSA) as the HSA for Area III.The Task Force was also responsible for the selection of the original board of directors, which was to be the governing body of CNYHSA.The Secretary, finding that all statutory requirements for the governing body had been met, approved the application of CNYHSA.⁵

The four individual plaintiffs and the Upstate Coalition on Minority Health⁶ disapproved of two of the five nominees to the board of directors representing minorities, asserting they did not really represent the minority community.⁷

The plaintiffs' complaint consists of a short formal statement alleging a failure on the part of the defendants as members of the Task Force to abide by the applicable law and regulations in the selection of the board of directors, together with a demand for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.The facts are spelled out in an affidavit of the attorney made part of the complaint by incorporation.

It is alleged that the membership of the CNYHSA board of directors violates the Act in two respects: 1) there is no representation from the geographic area of the inner city; and 2) the representation of social, economic, linguistic and racial populations is insufficient to satisfy the Act.The complaint asks for extensive declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction against seating the board of directors, approving CNYHSA as the HSA for Area III, and federal funding of CNYHSA.The supporting papers further specify the alleged inadequacies of the board of directors' membership: none of its members, including its "minority" members, lives in the inner city; none of its members can be classified as poor.The designation of government officials on the board of directors as consumers is attacked as a subterfuge.Finally, it is alleged that the minority members of the board of directors do not really represent the minority community.

QUESTION

Did the Secretary, in approving CNYHSA and its board of directors to serve as the HSA for Area III, either violate the Act or abuse his discretion?

DISCUSSION

Standing.

At oral argument, the Secretary contended that these plaintiffs lack the necessary standing to challenge the Secretary's approval of CNYHSA.Neither side has briefed the issue.However, the facts reveal that plaintiffs possess the requisite standing.The individual plaintiffs, along with several other persons, formed the Upstate Coalition in order to insure minority representation in the HSA selected for Area III.Plaintiffs then participated extensively in the activities of the Task Force and its nominating committee.Two of the plaintiffs sought membership on the board of directors, claiming they represented the minority community better than two of the other black persons selected by the Task Force.Accepting plaintiffs' allegations as truthful, it seems apparent that they have alleged "demonstrable, particularized injury", Warth v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490, 508, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343(1975), sufficient to establish their standing.

Jurisdiction Over the Federal Defendant.

The Secretary has moved to dismiss the action against him on the grounds of lack of federal jurisdiction.Jurisdiction was premised in the complaint on federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and at oral argument and in the briefs on mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.The knotty jurisdictional problems posed by mandamus, seeBilliteri v. United States Board of Parole,541 F.2d 938, 946-47(2d Cir.1976), and the jurisdictional amount under § 1331(a), see generally1 J. Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 0.963.-1 (2d Ed.1976), need not be pursued.Although the question is not entirely free of doubt,⁸ jurisdiction can be assumed to exist under the recent amendment to § 1331(a) permitting suits against the United States, its agencies or officers without regard to the amount in controversy.⁹In any event, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be granted.

The Secretary's Approval of CNYHSA.

The Act contains no specific provision establishing judicial review of the Secretary's approval or designation of an HSA.¹⁰Judicial review is, therefore, governed by the Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06.That statute provides that agency actions shall be set aside which are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . .."5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Plaintiffs' attack on the Secretary's approval of CNYHSA focuses on the language of 42 U.S.C. § 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(i), which requires that the consumers on the CNYHSA board of directors be "broadly representative of the social, economic, linguistic and racial populations, geographic areas of the health service area, and major purchasers of health care."Id.(emphasis added).Aside from this general language, plaintiffs cannot point to any more specific provision of the Act which has allegedly been violated.The undisputed facts indicate that the proper percentage of consumers are serving on the board of directors.¹¹Furthermore, the board of directors reflects a representative demographic selection of members from the eleven counties in Area III.¹²Nor can plaintiffs point to any specific requirement in the regulations which has been violated.¹³

Plaintiffs contend that no one on the board of directors represents the inner city.However, there is no requirement that the board of directors must specifically represent this geographic or socio-economic area.In fact, the only geographic areas which the Act specifically mentions are non-metropolitan.Congress was concerned that people residing in these areas be represented, in proportion to their population, on the HSA governing body.42 U.S.C. § 300l-1(b)(3)(C)(iii)(II).Plaintiffs also contend that the presence of government officials, serving on the board of directors as consumers, is a subterfuge.Plaintiffs argue that this is...