Lakeland Nursing Home v. Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals, 83-193
| Decision Date | 30 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-193,83-193 |
| Citation | 118 Wis.2d 636,348 N.W.2d 523 |
| Parties | LAKELAND NURSING HOME, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIVISION OF NURSING HOME FORFEITURE APPEALS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Gerald S. Wilcox, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom on briefs was Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for respondent-appellant.
Russell W. Devitt, Whitewater, corporation counsel for Walworth county, for petitioner-respondent.
This appeal, certified by the court of appeals, is from a judgment and order of the circuit court for Walworth county, John J. Byrnes, Circuit Judge, setting aside a decision of the Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals (Division) affirming the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services' assessment of a $500 forfeiture against Lakeland Nursing Home (Lakeland), for a violation of a regulation governing the operation of nursing homes. 1
Two issues are presented on appeal: First, whether a county-operated nursing home that violates a regulation is subject to a forfeiture under sec. 50.04(5), Stats.1981-82; second, whether the imposition of a forfeiture of $500 was appropriate in this case under the provisions of sec. 50.04(5)(b), 1981-82. On appeal the parties do not dispute that county-operated nursing homes such as Lakeland are subject to the licensing and regulatory provisions of ch. 50, 1981-82, or that Lakeland violated the regulation in question.
Because we conclude that the statutory forfeiture provisions of sec. 50.04(5) are applicable to a county-operated nursing home and that the Division's decision on the imposition and amount of the forfeiture is based on substantial evidence and a proper exercise of discretion, we reverse the order and judgment of the circuit court and affirm the assessment of the forfeiture against Lakeland.
Lakeland Nursing Home, an institution falling within the definition of nursing home in sec. 50.01(3), Stats.1981-82, is operated by Walworth county and is licensed by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services (the Department).
On April 24, 1979, following an investigation into a complaint that a nurse's aide at Lakeland attempted to force-feed an elderly diabetic patient, the Department cited Lakeland for violating sec. H 32.10(1)(g), Wis.Adm.Code, which provides that "[p]atients shall receive considerate care and treatment at all times and shall not be abused in any way." The violation was considered a class B violation under sec. 50.04(4)(b)2, 2 and a forfeiture of $500 was assessed pursuant to sec. 50.04(5)(a)2. 3
Lakeland concedes that it is a nursing home under ch. 50 and must comply with the provisions of ch. 50 applicable to nursing homes. It asserts, however, that as a county-operated nursing home it is not subject to the imposition of any forfeiture for violating a provision of ch. 50 or a regulation adopted thereunder. In other words, Lakeland asks that we read into sec. 50.04(5), the forfeiture provisions, an exception for county-operated nursing homes. Sec. 50.04(5) does not expressly include within its coverage or expressly exclude from its coverage a county-operated nursing home.
The question we face is whether the legislature, when it included county-operated nursing homes under ch. 50, intended that they be subject to the forfeiture provisions.
This question of statutory interpretation is a question of law. In resolving this legal issue, the court need not defer to the determination of the administrative agency or the circuit court since these tribunals are in no better position to interpret the statute than this court is.
Lakeland asserts that subjecting county-operated nursing homes to the forfeiture provisions contravenes the legislative intent. Lakeland argues as follows: The legislature's purpose in providing forfeitures was to induce nursing homes to comply with state regulations or suffer profit reduction through forfeiture. Such an inducement would not affect county-operated nursing homes, however, because they have no profits to be reduced. To impose a forfeiture on a county-operated nursing home would defeat, not promote, the legislative purpose of securing compliance with state regulations designed to improve residents' care because payment of a forfeiture reduces funds available for services to the residents; it does not reduce the profits that are available to the nursing home's owners.
To support its position, Lakeland relies on Wisconsin Veterans Home v. Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals, 104 Wis.2d 106, 310 N.W.2d 646 (1981), in which the court of appeals concluded that the legislature had not intended the forfeiture provided in sec. 50.04(5) to apply to the Wisconsin Veterans Home, a state-operated nursing home. The court of appeals decision that one state agency not impose a forfeiture upon another state agency rested on two grounds. First, a state agency would disturb the legislative decision as to allocation of state funds if one state agency paid a forfeiture upon prosecution by another state agency. Second, forfeiture through agency and court procedures is a cumbersome and expensive way to juggle figures in the state's accounting books. Lakeland urges that the considerations underlying the Veterans Home no-forfeiture rule as to state-operated nursing homes justify its extension to county-operated nursing homes.
We are not persuaded by Lakeland's arguments. First, we are concerned that adoption of Lakeland's argument might cast doubt as to whether any statutory forfeiture provision should be applied to the county if the county is not expressly mentioned. This construction has not generally been advocated. See, e.g., State v. City of Green Bay, 96 Wis.2d 195, 291 N.W.2d 508 (1980).
Second, the reasoning of the court of appeals in the Veterans Home case is inapplicable to this case. While the collection of a forfeiture by one state agency from another coequal state agency may needlessly reallocate the state's budget, collection of a forfeiture by the state from a county agency has a different effect. By shifting county revenue to the state, the forfeiture does not merely juggle the county's accounts but penalizes the taxpayers of the county and may thus encourage remedial action. The legislature might well have concluded that a forfeiture would induce a county-operated nursing home to comply with state regulations. Whether or not the home operates at a profit, loss of operating revenues may very well provide a substantial incentive to a county government to comply with state laws.
Finally, it appears that imposing a forfeiture on county-operated nursing homes comports with the legislative intent of creating a system of increasingly severe sanctions for increasingly dangerous violations. The legislature viewed forfeitures as a practical, useful enforcement tool. But if Lakeland's position were accepted, the state's mechanisms for enforcing its regulations against county-operated nursing homes might be limited to more drastic measures, such as suspending, revoking, or refusing to renew a license. This result is contrary to the legislative intent in enacting the forfeiture provisions in 1977.
The legislature sought to create an effective enforcement system that would encourage compliance, encourage the settlement of enforcement actions outside the court system, and provide a range of sanctions for a range of violations. One of the major problems encumbering enforcement of nursing home regulations which the 1977 law was designed to cure was "inflexible enforcement procedures." License revocation, the primary measure of enforcement, was far too disruptive a sanction except in the most extreme circumstances. In 1977 the legislature sought Introductory comment to Senate Bill 227, Legislative drafting file for chapter 170, Laws of 1977, Legislative Reference Bureau, Madison, Wis. The legislature expressed its intent as follows:
Sec. 1, ch. 170, Laws of 1977.
We conclude that if we were to adopt Lakeland's construction of the statute, the state's ability to enforce its regulatory scheme to protect residents of nursing homes would be unnecessarily hampered. Like any number of private entities in this state, a county may own and operate a nursing home. The private and public entities provide the same basic services. The forfeiture assessment procedure ensures compliance by every nursing home in the state with the standards set by the appropriate state agency. Absent either an express legislative declaration that county-operated nursing homes are exempt from forfeitures or a sound rationale that such an exemption would further legislative policy, we decline to read the statute as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Janesville v. Rock County
...of inapplicability, several factors operate to overcome it. Veterans Home was followed by Lakeland Nursing Home v. Division of Nursing Home Forfeiture Appeals, 118 Wis.2d 636, 348 N.W.2d 523 (1984). In that case, a county-operated nursing home sought exemption from the same statutory forfei......