Massachusetts General Hospital v. Commissioner of Public Welfare

Decision Date31 January 1964
Citation196 N.E.2d 181,346 Mass. 739
PartiesMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WELFARE.
CourtUnited 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.

WHITTEMORE, Justice.

This is an appeal from the final decree in the Superior Court which adjudged that the rules and regulations concerning the rendering of bills contained in the Medical Care Plan of the Department of Public Welfare are reasonable and within the rule making power of the department. The decree also affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Public Welfare denying the claim of the Massachusetts General Hospital (the hospital).

At issue is the right of the hospital to recover from the city of Boston its charges for hospital care furnished a resident of Boston under G.L. c. 118D (assistance to disabled persons) and not billed within three months after the services were rendered. A rule of the Department of Public Welfare set out in the Medical Care Plan requires monthly billing but allows a three months' grace period.

The rule in force at the time of the hearing was set out in State Letter 137 which, in attested form as required by law, was filed in the office of the Secretary of State on October 15, 1962. It was not effective before that date. G.L. c. 30, § 37; c. 30A, § 5. It did not apply, therefore, to the period of hospitalization which was in February and March, 1962.

There was, however, a similar rule in State Letter 100. No point is made that State Letter 100 had not been duly filed according to its stamp in 1959. 1

We must decide whether the applicable rule in State Letter 100 was lawfully adopted. It is undisputed that no notice was given or hearing held on this rule. The Commissioner contends that the adoption of the rule is governed by G.L. c. 30A, § 3, which provides, as to rules not subject to § 2, that '(3) If the agency finds that the requirements of notice and opportunity to present views on its proposed action are unnecessary, impracticable or contrary to the public interest, the agency may dispense with such requirements or any part thereof. The agency's finding and a brief statement of the reasons * * * shall be incorporated * * *.' 2

We hold that c. 30A, § 3, is inapplicable and that the billing rule is subject to c. 30A, § 2, which provides in part: 'Prior to the adoption or amendment of any regulation as to which a hearing is required by any law * * * an agency shall give notice and hold a public hearing * * *.'

The statute requiring a hearing in respect of the billing rule is G.L. c. 121, § 3. 'The [advisory] board [of the department of public welfare] * * * shall consider and hold public hearings on proposed rules and regulations of the department * * *.' We hold that c. 121, § 4, does not qualify c. 121, § 3, in its applicability to the billing rule. Chapter 121, § 4, provides, 'The commissioner may prepare and present for the approval of the board rules and regulations governing the conduct of the department and any action which may legally be taken under its authority, and such rules and regulations shall take effect upon approval by a majority of the board, and at such time as it by vote shall fix. Any person objecting * * * may submit his objection * * *. [T]he board * * * may hear the * * * [objecting] person * * *.'

Chapter 121, § 4, does not refer to rules which affect rights of those who supply medical facilities and services. Chapter 121, § 3, is the statutes concerned with a rule, such as the one in issue, which is within the definition of G.L. c. 30A, § 1(5): "Regulation' includes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Greenfield Const. Co. Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of State Highways
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1978
    ...Affairs v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 362 Mass. 602, 289 N.E.2d 867 (1972), and Massachusetts General Hospital v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 346 Mass. 739, 196 N.E.2d 181 (1964).27 See, for example, Frankenthal v. Wisconsin Real Estate Brokers Board, 3 Wis.2d 249, 88 N.W.2d 352, 8......
  • Massachusetts General Hosp. v. Commissioner of Public Welfare
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1966
    ...need not decide whether (as MGH's attorney contended) it was ineffective as a regulation. See Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Commissioner of Public Welfare, 346 Mass. 739, 740--742, 196 N.E.2d 181. It (p. 10) recognizes that '(p) hysicians' and surgeons' services in teaching hospitals will be ......
  • Tedford v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1984
    ...adjustments fail. We have said that decisions made without required regulations are invalid (see Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 739, 196 N.E.2d 181 [1964] ), but this principle is to be applied here with reference to the special provisions of § 6 of the ......
  • Murphy Nursing Home, Inc. v. Rate Setting Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • December 27, 1973
    ...Liquor, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commn., 345 Mass. 228, 235, 186 N.E.2d 593 (1962). Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 346 Mass. 739, 740, 196 N.E.2d 181 (1964). But in a proper case a regulation could be filed to redetermine rates for past transactions. Ma......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT