Gasconade County v. MO. DEPT. OF HEALTH
| Decision Date | 15 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 93672.,ED 93672. |
| Citation | 314 S.W.3d 368 |
| Parties | GASCONADE COUNTY COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., Respondent, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF Mental HEALTH, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Chris Koster, Attorney General, J. Scott Stacey, James R. Layton, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.
Lawrence J. Altman, Paul W. Lore, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Who may receive compensation under the Community Mental Health Services Act for providing mental health services to county residents is the issue presented in this appeal. The Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Comprehensive Psychiatric Services (the Department) appeals from the trial court's judgment declaring that for-profit corporations are not disqualified under Section 205.981, RSMo 20001 from being eligible to receive compensation from a Missouri county's community mental health fund for mental health services rendered to the county's residents. The Department contends that eligibility to receive compensation from the community mental health fund is limited to public facilities and not-for-profit entities, and argues that the trial court erroneously interpreted Section 205.981. Following a thorough review of the enabling legislation, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Because Missouri's statutory scheme under the Community Mental Health Services Act significantly informs the facts of this case, we begin with a brief discussion of how the Missouri legislature has authorized Gasconade County, and other similarly situated counties, to raise and administer public funds for community mental health services. See Sections 205.975-205.990.
Upon approval by a majority of its qualified voters, Gasconade County may levy and collect taxes for the establishment and maintenance of community mental health services. Section 205.977. All monies collected pursuant to this tax must be deposited in a special fund called the "Community Mental Health Fund" (the Fund). Section 205.980. The Missouri legislature has enumerated three purposes for monies in the Fund:
Section 205.977 (emphasis added). The Gasconade County Community Mental Health Fund Board of Trustees (the Board) is vested with the responsibility of administering the Fund. Section 205.975(1). As such, the Board may purchase comprehensive mental health services from certain entities. Sections 205.981.1, 205.975(1). Payment from the Board to the service-providing entity is "appropriated out of the county's community mental health fund." Section 205.981.2.
Though the Board enjoys discretion to enter such contracts, the Missouri legislature has proscribed limits with whom it may contract. Section 205.981.1 provides:
The Board ... may contract with a community mental health center, mental health clinic, or other public facility or not-for-profit corporation as designated by the Department for such comprehensive mental health services for the residents of such county as may be mutually agreeable between the ... officials of such center, clinic, facility, or corporation and the Board ... of the county requesting the services for the residents thereof.
(emphasis added). The phrase "as designated by the Department" operates in conjunction with Section 205.987 to charge the Department with the development and promulgation of certain qualitative standards that a service-providing entity is expected to meet. Sections 205.981, 205.987. Chronologically speaking, this framework envisions that, before the Board may contract with an entity to provide mental health services, such an entity must be deemed eligible to be compensated from the Fund by first complying with the Department's standards and certification requirements and then by obtaining the Department's designation. See Sections 205.975-205.990.2
Gasconade County Counseling Services, Inc. (Corporation) is a for-profit corporation conducting business in Hermann, Gasconade County, Missouri. Corporation is in the business of providing mental health services to individuals.3 The Department contends that Corporation is not eligible to contract with the Board and receive compensation from the Fund, and that it has never designated Corporation as eligible for Fund compensation.4 However, the Department admits that in 2001 it certified Corporation's compliance with the qualitative standards established by the Department for mental health programs.
Presumably in reliance on a determination by the Department in 2001 that certain services Corporation provided were potentially eligible for Fund compensation, the Board entered a contractual relationship with Corporation. As a result, Corporation, under contract with the Board, has provided mental health services for qualified Gasconade County residents since 2001. The most recent contract between the Board and Corporation took effect January 1, 2008 and provided for two annual renewals in 2009 and 2010. In return for these mental health services, the Board agreed to pay Corporation up to $51,000 from the Fund. Since 2001, Corporation has been compensated from the Fund for the mental health services rendered to Gasconade County residents.
In April 2007, the Department and Corporation began to exchange correspondence regarding the eligibility of for-profit entities to receive compensation pursuant to mental health service contracts authorized under Section 205.981. On October 29, 2007, the Department sent a letter informing both the Board and Corporation that, although the Department had certified Corporation to provide mental health services to the public, the Department had not yet designated Corporation as eligible to receive compensation from the Fund. Furthermore, the Department explained its interpretation of Section 205.981, which permitted the Department to designate only public or not-for-profit entities as eligible to receive compensation from the Fund. Due to Corporation's for-profit status, the Department's interpretation of Section 205.981 necessarily precluded the Board's authority to contract with Corporation. In response, Corporation contended that the Department's interpretation was too narrow, and that Section 205.981 does not restrict eligibility for the Department's designation to only public or not-for-profit entities.
Unsure of whether its contract with Corporation was permissible under the legislature's statutory scheme, the Board ultimately advised Corporation in May of 2008 that it could not renew its current contract for the year 2009 until and unless Corporation obtained either the Department's designation or a court order finding it eligible to receive compensation from the Fund. In so advising Corporation of its action, the Board made clear that the decision not to renew its contract with Corporation was not related to the quality of the services provided. The Board's letter to Corporation opened with the following statement: "Please be assured that this non-renewal has nothing to do with the quality of care being provided by Corporation." In its letter, the Board informed Corporation that if it were to "seek `designation,' the Board was willing to go on record and affirmatively state that it was pleased with the services Corporation provided."
Thus, on May 16, 2008, Corporation wrote to the Department formally requesting designation. On June 30, 2008, the Department notified Corporation that it received the request but re-iterated its position that only public or not-for-profit entities were eligible for such designation. The Department added that it would not review Corporation's eligibility to receive compensation from the Fund until it received documentation of Corporation's non-profit status.
On July 21, 2008, Corporation filed a declaratory judgment petition against the Department, requesting the trial court to declare that Section 205.981 does not limit the entities eligible for the Department's designation to only public or not-for-profit entities. Corporation moved for summary judgment on January 2, 2009.
The trial court found that Section 205.981 listed four types of designation-eligible entities: (1) community mental health centers, (2) mental health clinics, (3) public facilities, or (4) not-for-profit corporations. In so finding, the trial court declared that, to the extent that the Department refuses to designate an entity for purposes of Section 205.981 merely because such an entity is not a public or not-for-profit entity, the Department's interpretation of Missouri law is incorrect. The trial court held that, even if an entity does not fall under Section 205.981's "public facility" or "not-for-profit corporation" classification, such an entity may still be designation-eligible if the entity may be properly categorized as a "community mental health center" or "mental health clinic" as provided under Section 205.981. The trial court additionally declared that any reading of Department regulation 9 CSR 30-2.010 contrary to the court's interpretation of Section 205.981 was invalid. For these reasons, Corporation's motion for summary judgment was sustained. This appeal follows.
The Department raises two points on appeal. First, the Department claims that the trial court erred by wrongly interpreting Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State
...to refer to and limit and restrict an immediately preceding clause or antecedent.’ " Gasconade Cty. Counseling Servs., Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Health , 314 S.W.3d 368, 374 n.5 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (quoting 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:26 (7th ed.) ). Here, the clause, "that previo......
-
Custom Hardware Eng'g & Consulting, Inc. v. Dowell
...consequently, the plain and ordinary meaning of the chosen words drives its analysis. See Gasconade Cnty. Counseling Servs., Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Health, 314 S.W.3d 368, 376 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). Defendants' argument presupposes that the restrictive clause, “for the purpose of inducing such p......
-
Lapponese v. Carts of Colo., Inc.
...trial court's interpretation of a statute is an issue of law that warrants de novo review. Gasconade Cnty. Counseling Servs., Inc. v. Missouri Dep't of Health, 314 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Mo.Ct.App.2010). Where the award of attorneys' fees is not mandatory, “the granting or refusal to grant attorn......
-
Lapponese v. Carts of Colo., Inc.
...trial court's interpretation of a statute is an issue of law that warrants de novo review. Gasconade Cnty. Counseling Servs., Inc. v. Missouri Dep't of Health, 314 S.W.3d 368, 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). Where the award of attorneys' fees is not mandatory, "the granting or refusal to grant att......
-
MO Register Vol. 39 No. 3. (Pages 427-484)
...itconsistent with the statute as it was interpreted in Gasconade CountyCounseling Services, Inc. v Missouri Department of Mental Health,314 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. App., E.D. (3) Any program designated by the department to provide serviceswith funds from counties under sections 205.975-205.990, RSM......