Mountain View Pioneer Hospital v. Employment Sec. Commission
Decision Date | 15 March 1971 |
Docket Number | Nos. 9850,9851,s. 9850 |
Citation | 482 P.2d 448,107 Ariz. 81 |
Parties | MOUNTAIN VIEW PIONEER HOSPITAL, an Arizona Corporation, Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION of Arizona, Charles J. Minning, James A. Beaman and K. A. Phillips, Members of the Employment Security Commission of Arizona, Appellees. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by James A. Tucker, Asst. Atty., Gen., Phoenix, for appellees.
Alan Philip Bayham and Max Klass, Phoenix, for appellant.
Mountain View Pioneer Hospital, plaintiff below in both cases, appeals from the orders of the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissing Mountain View's complaints on motion of the defendant, Employment Security Commission of Arizona. This Court has jurisdiction in this matter by virtue of A.R.S. § 23--682.
This is one of two cases which are being appealed simultaneously: (1) Mountain View Pioneer Hospital v. Employment Security Commission, et al., Case No. 209377, filed in the Superior Court on February 27, 1968; (2) Mountain View Pioneer Hospital v. Employment Security Commission, et al., Case No. 211888, filed in the Superior Court on May 10, 1968. Both cases involve the same parties, issues and almost identical facts.
Appellant's Opening Brief at 2, Case No. 211888.
For this reason we have consolidated these two cases on appeal.
Mountain View instituted these two actions in an attempt to obtain a refund of approximately $9,000.00 in contributions made pursuant to an order of the Employment Security Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. The Commission claims that Mountain View was not entitled to judicial review for the reason that it failed to follow the required statutory procedure of A.R.S. § 23--741. It also maintains that since the mandates of § 23--741 were not observed and all of Mountain View's administrative remedies were not exhausted, the superior court did not have jurisdiction in the matter. Mountain View, on the other hand, bases its appeal on the alleged grounds that the statutory procedure was followed. A.R.S. § 23--741 reads as follows:
' § 23--741. Payment of contribution under protest; petition for reduction of contribution; action to recover payment
A. An employer aggrieved by a contribution required by this chapter shall pay it before the delinquent date and shall at the same time give notice to the commission that all or part of the payment is made under protest. The notice shall be in writing, addressed to the commission stating the reasons for protest and that all or a portion of the payment is protested. Within ten days thereafter the employer may petition for a hearing, setting forth the reasons why the petition should be granted and the amount by which the contribution should be reduced. The commission shall grant the hearing, which shall be not later than twenty days after filing the petition, and shall notify the petitioner of the time and place thereof. After the hearing the commission shall make an appropriate order and shall furnish a copy thereof to the petitioner.
B. Within twenty days after entry of the order the petitioner may bring an action against the commission in the superior court, or in the United States district court when requisite jurisdiction exists, to recover the payment claimed invalid.
C. The procedure and the right of appeal from a judgment entered therein shall be subject to the rules applicable to civil actions, but no judgment for the refund of the contributions shall provide for interest thereon.
D. If final judgment is rendered in favor of the employer, the commission shall refund from the clearing account of the fund the amount found by the judgment to have been invalid or illegally collected.'
The facts necessary for a determination of these two cases are as follows: Mountain View originally claimed exemption from payment of contributions under A.R.S. § 23--617, subsec. 10, as amended, as a nonprofit hospital operating exclusively for charitable purposes; the pertinent portion of which is as follows:
The record reveals the Commission had earlier advised Mountain View that it would not be entitled to exemption from contribution under the Act until such time as the Hospital's articles of incorporation were amended to specify that if dissolution should occur, its assets would then revert to some other charity. Such condition was complied with and Mountain View's attorney notified the Commission that on February 2, 1968 such amendment had been recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder's Office. On February 20, 1968 Mountain View was informed that it had been granted 'exempt' status as of February 2, 1968. Rather than follow the statutory procedure of A.R.S. § 23--741, supra, Mountain View proceeded to file its first complaint with the Superior Court (Case No. 209377). On March 6, 1968 the Commission filed a motion to dismiss; which motion was granted on March 27, 1968, but not formally entered until December 3, 1968.
On April 2, 1968 Mountain View filed an 'Application for Refund' with the Commission and on April 16, 1968 the Commission unanimously decided to deny Mountain View's request 'for the reason they failed to comply with the administrative processes provided for in Sections * * * 23--741.' Abstract of the Record at page 12.
With the first case still technically pending; since the formal order of dismissal had not yet been filed, Mountain View filed its second complaint with the superior court on May 10, 1968 (Case No. 211888). On June 3, 1968 the Commission filed another motion to dismiss on the grounds that 'the Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and for the further reason that the matter is res judicata.' The order granting dismissal of this second action was formally entered on November 6, 1968. From these orders, granting the Commission's motions to dismiss, Mountain View appeals to this Court.
A.R.S. § 23--741 is crucial to a determination of the two cases; for it specifies the exact procedure to be taken in seeking judicial review of a payment made under protest. On appeal Mountain View claims that the 'action seeking refund was instituted pursuant to and in accordance with Section 23--741 A.R.S.' and that such procedures were complied with. We cannot agree. The record clearly shows that the statute's (§ 23--741) mandates were not followed. In appealing to the superior court In both cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Rolnick
...agency the opportunity to make the initial adjudication may make judicial review unnecessary. Mountain View Pioneer Hosp. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 107 Ariz. 81, 85, 482 P.2d 448, 452 (1971). ¶ 25 Before filing his § 1983 action in state court, Baker was required to exhaust all administrat......
-
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell
...lacks jurisdiction to consider their claim. See Univar Corp., 122 Ariz. at 223, 594 P.2d at 89; Mountain View Pioneer Hosp. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 107 Ariz. 81, 85, 482 P.2d 448, 452 (1971) ("When a party fails to exhaust all his administrative remedies ... the trial court is without ju......
-
Kerr v. Waddell
...right to judicial review and the trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain such action." Mountain View Pioneer Hosp. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 107 Ariz. 81, 85, 482 P.2d 448, 452 (1971). We held in Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. 239, 251, 848 P.2d 324, 336 (App.1992), cert. de......
-
St. Mary's Hosp. and Health Center v. State
...231 F.2d 576 (9th Cir.1955); Minor v. Cochise County, 125 Ariz. 170, 608 P.2d 309 (1980); Mountain View Pioneer Hospital v. Employment Security Commission, 107 Ariz. 81, 482 P.2d 448 (1971); Campbell v. Chatwin, 102 Ariz. 251, 428 P.2d 108 (1967); Arizona Law Enforcement Merit System Counci......
-
§ 31.3.2.3.1 Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
...542 (App. 1976). Second, courts are reluctant to invade areas of agency expertise. Mountain View Pioneer Hosp. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 107 Ariz. 81, 85, 482 P.2d 448, 452 (1971). Third is the interest in economizing on judicial resources. Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix, 122 Ariz. 220, 2......