Crespin v. Coye
| Citation | 27 Cal.App.4th 700,34 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A061044,A061044 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George CRESPIN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Molly COYE, as Director, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Charlton G. Holland, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., San Francisco, CA, for appellants.
Lucy Quacinella, Legal Services of Northern CA, Chico, CA, Susan Drake, Nat. Immigration of Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, Stephen Ronfeldt, Legal Aid Soc. of Alameda Co., Oakland, CA, Mark Regan, Nat. Health Law Program, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, Esther Epstein, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc., Pacoima, CA, Nancy Rimsha, Legal Aid Soc. of Orange County, Santa Ana, CA, Melinda Bird, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Los Angeles, CA, for respondents.
Stephen Schear, Oakland, CA, for Alameda Health Consortium.
Carole Raimondi-Pineda, Berkeley, CA, for Father George Crespin.
This is an appeal from the entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting the State Department of Health, among others, 1 from requiring applicants for "restricted" Medi-Cal benefits to declare under penalty of perjury whether they are a United States citizen or national; and whether they have "satisfactory immigration status" (see WELF. & INST.CODE, § 14011.22, subd. (d)(3)); and if they respond in the affirmative to any of the foregoing inquiries, to produce a social security number.
The Department contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the disclosure of an applicant's immigration status and social security number is required by the recently amended sections 14007.5 and 14011.2.
Respondents 3 filed their original complaint on March 21, 1988. The complaint challenged the process for determining Medi-Cal eligibility for immigrants under the version of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14007.5 then in effect. (Stats. 1981-82, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 3, § 42, p. 6913.)
Effective September 27, 1988, Senate Bill 175 (Stats.1988, ch. 1441, §§ 2, 3, p. 4919) In light of these amendments, respondents filed a first supplemental complaint challenging the Department's procedures for determining eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits pursuant to Senate Bill No. 175. In their supplemental complaint respondents contended that the Department required all applicants, including those seeking restricted benefits, "to state whether they are a citizen or an alien, whether they have been granted amnesty, and whether they have been granted temporary or permanent resident status, their social security number, their alien registration number, the date they first entered the United States, and country of birth and citizenship." Respondents alleged that requiring disclosure of this information "(1) violated the right to privacy under the California Constitution, and (2) violated sections 10000, 14000, 14000.1, 14005, 14005.4, 14005.7, subdivision (a), and 14017.8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the required disclosure [was not required by any provision of the Welfare and Institutions Code, was irrelevant to eligibility, and] would deter eligible aliens from applying for necessary emergency and pregnancy-related services." (Crespin v. Kizer (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 498, 519, 276 Cal.Rptr. 571 (Crespin I ).)
repealed former section 14007.5 and reenacted a new section 14007.5, which created two categories of Medi-Cal eligibility for aliens: The full-range of Medi-Cal services (hereinafter, full-scope benefits) are available to aliens who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or who are permanently residing in the United States under color of law (PRUCOL). (§ 14007.5, subds. (b) and (c).) Aliens who do not have the immigration status described in subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 14007.5 are eligible only for care and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition, and medically necessary pregnancy-related services (hereinafter, restricted benefits). (§ 14007.5, subd. (d).)
Respondents obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department from requiring applicants seeking only restricted benefits to disclose their immigration status or social security numbers. In Crespin I this court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction and affirmed that order. (Crespin I at pp. 518-520, 276 Cal.Rptr. 571.)
Respondents thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment. They contended that immigration status and social security numbers were irrelevant to eligibility for restricted benefits, and disclosure of this information was not required by the version of section 14007.5 enacted by Senate Bill No. 175. They argued that requiring the disclosure of this information deterred eligible aliens from applying for benefits. In support of their construction of section 14007.5, they relied on our opinion in Crespin I, which they contended was law of the case.
Shortly after respondents' motion was filed, Senate Bill No. 485 (Stats.1992, ch. 722, § 67), which amended section 14007.5 and added section 14011.2, became effective. The new section 14007.5, subdivision (e) provides that: "Pursuant to Section [14011.2] 4 each county department shall require that each applicant for, or beneficiary of, Medi-Cal, including a child, shall provide his or her social security account number, or numbers, if he or she has more than one social security number." Section 14011.2 generally requires that "each applicant for or beneficiary of Medi-Cal ... shall provide" his or her social security number, but that a social security number shall not be a condition of eligibility for restricted benefits. Subdivision (d) of section 14011.2 further requires that "every applicant" declare under penalty of perjury that 5
In light of the changes made by Senate Bill No. 485, the Department filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well as an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. It contended that under the newly amended Welfare and Institutions Code the Department is expressly required to ensure that every applicant for Medi-Cal declares whether or not he or she is a United States citizen or national, or an alien with "satisfactory immigration status," and discloses his or her social security number if he or she does not declare undocumented status.
The court denied the Department's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. The court declared that the Welfare and Institutions Code does not permit the Department to require any disclosure concerning immigration status or social security numbers of applicants for restricted benefits, and that such inquiries deterred eligible aliens from applying for benefits. The court issued a permanent injunction, from which the Department appeals. 6
The Department seeks reversal of the judgment insofar as it restrains it from (1) requiring all applicants for Medi-Cal benefits, including those seeking only restricted benefits, to declare under penalty of perjury whether they are a United States citizen or national or an alien with "satisfactory immigration status"; and (2) requiring all applicants, except those who declare status as undocumented aliens, to provide a social security number.
The Department contends that the plain language of section 14007.5, subdivision (e) and section 14011.2 requires all applicants to make a declaration of citizenship or immigration status and to provide a social security number if they do not declare undocumented status. The declaration of immigration status allows the Department to identify those applicants who are required to provide a social security number. Requiring the disclosure of social security numbers, in turn, aids the Department in verifying whether an applicant satisfies income eligibility requirements. The Department argues that exempting applicants who seek only restricted benefits from complying with these statutory disclosure requirements increases the risk of fraud, because United States citizens or nationals, or aliens who have "satisfactory immigration status" may obtain benefits to which they are not entitled. 7
Respondents contend that sections 14007.5 and 14011.2 should be construed as exempting any applicant for restricted benefits from making the declaration set forth in section 14011.2, subdivision (d). In support of this contention, they assert that our holding in Crespin I is law of the case and that Senate Bill No. 485 did not effect any substantive changes in the law. They further contend that applicants who seek only restricted benefits may not be asked whether they have a social security number, because such inquiry is merely a thinly veiled attempt to determine immigration status. They conclude that disclosure of immigration status and a social security number is not required by any provision of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and that the Department must be restrained from making such inquiries, because the effect is to deter eligible aliens from applying for benefits because they fear deportation. 8
The trial court's judgment is based on its implicit determination that, as a matter of law, neither section 14007.5 nor section 14011.2 require applicants who seek only restricted benefits to disclose their immigration status or social security number. The dispositive legal question we must therefore resolve is whether the trial court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that sections 14007.5 and 14011.2 neither require nor permit these inquiries.
We shall hold that sections 14007.5, subdivision (e), and section 14011.2 require that all applicants for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roche v. Hyde
...case doctrine will simply disappear" ( ibid. ), other than to provide guidance as to the applicable law. (Cf. Crespin v. Coye (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 700, 708, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 [appellate rulings on review of a preliminary injunction may become law of the case in subsequent proceedings in th......
-
Chrisdiana v. Dept. of Community Health
...as long as those applicants are not effectively required to produce documents they do not actually have. Crespin v. Coye, 27 Cal. App.4th 700, 711-712, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 (1994). Plaintiff also relies on two nonbinding policy statements issued by the United States Department of Health and Hu......
-
State v. Metz
...law between the first and second appeal); Webb v. Smith, 224 Mich.App. 203, 568 N.W.2d 378 (1997) (same); Crespin v. Coye, 27 Cal. App.4th 700, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 (1994) The law of the case doctrine is essentially one of judicial economy and judicial discretion. Defendant offers no cogent re......
-
Crespin v. Shewry
...the trial court entered judgment on the permanent injunction. The judgment was affirmed in substantial part in Crespin v. Coye (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 700, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 10. Plaintiffs never sought attorney fees in connection with any of the litigation that occurred from 1988 through In Marc......