Marlborough Hospital v. Commissioner of Public Welfare
| Decision Date | 31 January 1964 |
| Citation | 196 N.E.2d 199,346 Mass. 737 |
| Parties | MARLBOROUGH HOSPITAL v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Albert G. Tierney, Jr., Boston, for petitioner.
David Lee Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen. (James C. Doyle, Boston, with him), for respondent.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.
Marlborough Hospital (the hospital) sought judicial review in the Superior Court of a decision of the Commissioner of Public Welfare under G.L. c. 118A, § 21. The controversy arose because of the refusal of the city of Marlborough to pay to the hospital the amount of its charges for a part of a patient's stay in the hospital.
In the Superior Court the hospital prevailed in all of its substantive contentions. The judge ruled (1) that the hearing before the referee (G.L. c. 118A, § 21) was not the 'fair hearing' required by that section, (2) the decision of the referee (approved by the commissioner and hence the decision of the department under § 21) was not supported by substantial evidence under G.L. c. 30A, § 14, and (3) the commissioner was without authority to promulgate a rule reducing the amount of needed medical assistance to one entitled to medical care to the aged under G.L. c. 118A because of a determination that contributions should be made by others.
The 'final decree' remanded the proceedings for a new hearing. See G.L. c. 30A, § 14(8): 'The court may * * * remand the matter for further proceedings before the agency * * *.'
The judge's ruling that there had not been a fair hearing is based on the finding that after the conclusion of the hearing the referee submitted the evidence for the opinion of the medical consultant and followed the consultant's views. The hospital's present contention is that this did not make the hearing unfair, and that any error can be fully corrected by disregarding the medical consultant's views and by ruling for the hospital on the uncontroverted testimony of the patient's physician. Hence, the hospital asserts, the case should not have been remanded.
These issues are not now before us. The case may not be brought to this court after an order for remand. Our power under G.L. c. 30A, § 15, is to review ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borman v. Borman
...the Probate Court.8 Finality does not hinge on the label that is placed on the judge's action. See Marlborough Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 737, 738, 196 N.E.2d 199 (1964); Churchill v. Churchill, 239 Mass. 443, 446, 132 N.E. 185 (1921); J. F. Lombard, Probate Law and Pr......
-
Medi-Cab of Massachusetts Bay, Inc. v. Rate Setting Com'n
...Metropolitan Dist. Comm'n v. Department of Pub. Utils., 352 Mass. 18, 30, 224 N.E.2d 502 (1967). Marlborough Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 737, 196 N.E.2d 199 (1964). Thus, this appeal is premature. Nevertheless, because of the age of this matter and because the parties a......
-
Atkinson's Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Com'n
...That section, as originally inserted by St.1954, c. 681, § 1, read as set out in the margin. 7 In Marlborough Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 737, 196 N.E.2d 199 (1964), the court read the portion of the section which is italicized in note 7 hereof in light of the "finality......
-
Roberts-Haverhill Associates v. City Council of Haverhill
...a remand have been considered to be interlocutory, and appeals therefrom have been dismissed. See Marlborough Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 737, 738, 196 N.E.2d 199 (1964); Metropolitan Dist. Commn. v. Department of Pub. Util., 352 Mass. 18, 30, 224 N.E.2d 502 (1967). Con......