Bureau of Old Age Assistance of Natick v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

• Decision Date: 08 June 1950
• Parties: BUREAU OF OLD AGE ASSISTANCE OF NATICK v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BUREAU OF OLD AGE ASSISTANCE OF NATICK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

326 Mass. 121

93 N.E.2d 267

BUREAU OF OLD AGE ASSISTANCE OF NATICK v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BUREAU OF OLD AGE ASSISTANCE OF NATICK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 8, 1950

Argued May 2, 1950.

E. P. Healy, Asst Atty. Gen., for appellants.

A. B. Goodspeed Town Counsel, Boston, for appellee.

Before QUA, C. J and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ. RONAN, Justice.

The first case is a petition for a writ of certiorari brought by the members of the bureau of old age assistance of the town of Natick against the commissioner of public welfare of the commonwealth to quash his decision purporting to be in accordance with a directive or regulation known as 'State Letter 29' and issued by the department of public welfare of the Commonwealth, which decision, if left standing, would require Natick to pay old age assistance to one Hayes, who at the time of his application to Natick for such aid was residing in Worcester and whose settlement was in the town of Methuen. The respondent appealed from an order for judgment quashing his decision.

The second case is a petition by the Attorney General in behalf of the commissioner for a writ of mandamus against the petitioners in the first case to compel them to pay assistance to Hayes in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the commissioner. The petitioner appealed from an order dismissing the petition.

The petitions were heard together. There seems to be little dispute as to the facts. Hayes resided in Natick from September, 1936, until April 24, 1948, when he removed from Natick upon being admitted at his own request to the Odd Fellows Home, a charitable institution located in Worcester, where he has since resided and where he has been supplied with food clothing, lodging, medical care and all other personal needs, without charge. He is not a contract inmate of this home. He did not pay or promise to pay anything for his admission to or maintenance by the home. He applied for and received old age assistance on March 4, 1941, from Natick and continuously thereafter while he resided in Natick and up to May 1, 1948, when at his request further aid ceased. Natick was reimbursed for a part of this assistance rendered to Hayes in accordance with G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 118A, § 8, as amended, and c. 117, § 14, as amended, by the town of Methuen where Hayes had a military settlement. Hayes, however, again applied to Natick for old age assistance on July 15, 1948, and upon the refusal of his application he appealed to the commissioner, who made a decision on December 3, 1948, to the effect that Hayes was entitled to assistance in a certain amount and notified the bureau of old age assistance of Natick.

In making this decision the commissioner was acting under a regulation, 'State Letter 29,' so called, which had been promulgated by the department of public welfare of the Commonwealth on September 17, 1947, and which purported to have been authorized under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 118A, § 10, as appearing in St.1941, c. 597, § 2. This regulation provided in substance that upon the removal of an old age assistance recipient to an incorporated home, boarding or nursing home located in another municipality and not supported in whole or in part by public funds, 'the community where such a person last maintained a residence * * * shall grant and continue assistance for a period of at least one year beyond the date of application,' made within a year after admission to the home.

The only question presented is the correctness of the decision of the commissioner of December 3, 1948, which in turn depends upon the validity of 'State Letter 29.'

The statute, G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 118A, § 10, as amended, empowers the department of public welfare to supervise the administration of our system of old age assistace and to adopt rules and regulations for its efficient administration. 'The rules and regulations adopted by the department may include, among others, provisions relative to notice and reimbursement, the organization of the activities of bureaus of old age assistance under this chapter, including provisions for adequacy of personnel, a uniform system of records and accounts to be kept by boards of public welfare or bureaus of old age assistance, and for the manner and form of making reports to the department.' There is nothing in any of the matters specifically mentioned as being subject to rules and regulations of the department that permits the imposition of an obligation upon a town to furnish old age assistance to one who never had a settlement in the town after he no longer resides in the town but has voluntarily taken up his residence in another city or town. It is urged by the commissioner that the authority to promulgate the rule in question is included in the broad and general power conferred upon the department to supervise and administer this system of relief. Where a grant of power is expressly conferred by statute upon a administrative officer or board or where a specific duty is imposed upon them, they in the absence of some statutory limitation have authority to employ all ordinary means reasonably necessary for the full exercise of the power and for the faithful performance of the duty. Fluet v. McCabe, 299 Mass. 173, 12 N.E.2d 89; George A. Fuller Co. v. Commonwealth, 303 Mass. 216, 21 N.E.2d 529; Attorney General v. Trustees of Boston Elevated Railway Co., 319 Mass. 642, 655, 67 N.E.2d 676; Scannel v. State Ballot Law Commission, 324 Mass. 494, 87 N.E.2d 16.

But an administrative board or officer has no authority to promulgate rules and regulations which are in conflict with the...