Health and Social Services Dept. v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 13 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 10594,10594
• Citation: 545 P.2d 1018,88 N.M. 640,1976 NMSC 3
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Parties: HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT of the State of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Modesto GARCIA, Respondent. HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT of the State of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Rosemary SEALE, Respondent.

Page 1018

545 P.2d 1018

88 N.M. 640

HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT of the State of New

Mexico, Petitioner, v. Modesto GARCIA, Respondent.

HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT of the State of New

Mexico, Petitioner, v. Rosemary SEALE, Respondent.

No. 10594.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 13, 1976.

[88 N.M. 641] Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., James G. Huber, HSSD Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioner.

Gary J. Martone, Joseph F. Canepa, Albuquerque, for respondents.

OPINION

OMAN, Chief Justice.

These consolidated causes are before us upon a writ of certiorari directed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside decisions and orders of the Director of the Health and Social Services Department of the State of New Mexico (H.S.S.D.) and instructed the continuation of payments to respondents of benefits under the wholly State funded General Assistance Program until the termination of respondents' respective temporary disabilities or until benefits have been paid to them for a total period of twelve months, whichever shall be the lesser. Garcia v. Health and Social Services Department, 88 N.M. 419, 540 P.2d 1308 (Ct.App.1975). We reverse the Court of Appeals and order that it affirm the decisions and orders of the Director.

In accordance with an agreement of the parties and an order of dismissal of one of the two issues initially presented to the Court of Appeals, the only issue finally presented to and decided by that court was: 'whether the six-month limitation on General Assistance benefits in H.S.S.D. Manual Regulation 240.2 is legal.'

This regulation, which was adopted by the Health and Social Services Board and which has since been amended, read in pertinent part:

'General Assistance cash payments are limited to payments * * * (2) to temporarily disabled needy persons with no minor dependents. In cases of temporarily disabled needy persons with no dependent children cash assistance will be limited to a period of no more than six months in any twelve (12) month period.'

There is no doubt that each of the respondents received general assistance benefits at the established rate for a period of six months during a twelve month period, as provided in Regulation 240.2, supra, and was terminated pursuant to the clearly stated limitation on benefits as provided in the regulation. As shown by the foregoing stated issue presented to the Court of Appeals, and as shown by the record on the hearings before the administrative agency, we are not concerned with the correctness of the resolution of any issue of fact. We are concerned only with the question of the authority of the Health and Social Services Board to adopt Regulation 240.2, supra.

By this regulation, the Board determined that a certain monthly amount--not here in question--would be payable to temporarily disabled persons with no dependent children during the period of disability, but not to exceed six months during any twelve month period. Upon the basis of its construction of §§ 13--17--5 and --10, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1975), the Court of Appeals concluded that H.S.S.D. must continue to pay the respondents 'for the extent of their disability or up to twelve (12) total months, whichever is shorter.' Obviously this would impose upon H.S.S.D. additional financial burdens for which it might not have legislatively appropriated funds. In its brief before us, H.S.S.D. says it lacks funds to finance a program which would impose upon it such a burden, but this does not so appear in the record properly before us. However, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that funds are available, or that the Health and Social Services Board in adopting Regulation 240.2, supra, did not act properly and within its legislative authority. One attacking a legislative regulation or regulatiory scheme has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity thereof. Condor Operating Company v. Sawhill, 514 F.2d 351 (Em.App.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 976, 95 S.Ct. 1975, 44 L.Ed.2d 467 (1975); Grubbs v. Butz, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 514 F.2d 1323 (1975); United States v. Boyd, 491 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1973); Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel, 69 Cal.2d 172, 70 Cal.Rptr. 407, 444 P.2d 79 (1968); Moore v. District Court In & For City & Cty. of Denver, Colo., 518 P.2d 948 (1974); Hohnke v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.2d 162 (Ky.1970); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., 25 Ill.App.3d 271, 323 N.E.2d 84 (1974); Cooper River Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dougherty, 13o N.J.Super. 226, 336 A.2d 35 (1975); Texas Liquor Control Board v. Attic Club, Inc., 457 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1970), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 986, 91 S.Ct. 459, 27 L.Ed.2d 435 (1971); 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 5.03 (1958).

We again state that courts must be extremely careful in creating programs which must be funded by legislative appropriations. New Mexico Health & Social Services Dept. v. Chavez, 85 N.M. 447, 513 P.2d 184 (1973).

Respondents have sought to raise in their briefs before the Court of Appeals and in their brief before this court constitutional objections to Regulation 240.2, supra. However, the constitutional issues they sought to raise in the Court of Appeals were not properly raised and were not considered by that court, except that reference was made to one of them in the dissenting opinion. The claim respondents seek to raise in this court is that Regulation 240.2, supra, offends against the equal protection clauses of the State and Federal constitutions in that it creates the following two classes which are treated unequally: (1) temporarily disabled and needy persons who come within the regulation, but who have received cash assistance for six months of a twelve month period; and (2) temporarily disabled and needy persons who come within the regulation, but who have not yet received cash assistance for six months of a twleve month period.

That is, they claim temporarily disabled and needy persons can be treated equally under the law only by...