Rutland Hospital, Inc. v. State Bd. of Health

Decision Date21 June 1966
Docket NumberNo. 1959,1959
Citation220 A.2d 722,126 Vt. 41
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesThe RUTLAND HOSPITAL, INC. v. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.

Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Rutland, for plaintiff.

Albert Pingree, Deputy Atty. Gen., Attorney's General's Office, Montpelier, for defendant.

Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY and KEYSER, JJ.

KEYSER, Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings before the State Board of Health, denying the amended application of the petitioner for federal funds allocated to the Board for use in the construction of hospital and medical facilities in Vermont under the Hill-Burton Act, 42 U.S.C. § 291, as amended. The petitioner further prays that the writ issue ordering that its revised application be approved. The petitionee countered with a motion to quash the petition, claiming the action is not reviewable.

By act of legislature, 18 V.S.A. §§ 1801-1814, the State Board of Health is the sole agency of the state to do all things necessary to obtain full benefits under the Federal Act. Section 1805 provides that the commission make an inventory of the existing hospital and medical facilities, survey the need for construction of such facilities and on the basis of such inventory and survey, develop a program for the construction of such public and other non-profit hospitals and physical facilities as will, with existing facilities, afford the necessary physical facilities for furnishing adequate hospital and medical facility services to all the people of the state.

The construction program must provide for adequate hospital and medical facilities for the people residing in this state and, insofar as possible, shall provide for their distribution throughout the state in such manner as to make all types of hospital and medical facility services reasonably accessible to all persons in the state. §§ 1806.

The State Plan which includes the hospital and medical facilities construction program must be submitted to, and have the approval of, the Surgeon General of the Federal Health Service. § 1808.

Section 1811 requires that each application for a construction project shall conform to federal and state requirements.

Section 1812 provides that the Board shall afford to every applicant for a construction project an opportunity for a fair hearing. After this and presentation of applications in the order of relative need, if the Board finds a project application complies with the requirements of § 1811 and is otherwise in conformity with the state plan, it shall approve such application and recommend and forward it to the surgeon general.

On February 6, 1963, the petitioner submitted its application to the Board for federal funds in connection with the construction of an additional 55 bed unit at its hospital in Rutland City. The availability of federal funds for this project was generally governed by the 'Thirteenth Annual Revision of the Vermont State Plan for Construction of Hospital and Medical Facilities,' promulgated by the Board as required by the Federal Act.

This revised plan resulted from a survey of aid for suitable hospital beds on the basis of a state wide inventory of existing facilities. The need of such facilities in the Rutland area to meet minimum standards was therein determined at 231 beds. The inventory of suitable hospital beds in the Rutland area showed 196 were available, a deficiency of 35 between need and availability. The inventory included 22 beds in the so-called Keenan Clinic, a proprietary hospital in Rutland.

The Board ruled that, as there was a deficiency of only 35 beds in the Rutland area, only 64 per cent of the petitioners 55 bed project was eligible for federal aid. The petitioner protested orally to this ruling on the ground that the beds at the Keenan Clinic should not properly have been considered as general hospital beds in the inventory of the existing facilities.

The hospital went forward with its construction program of the 55 bed unit without the aid of federal funds for the additional 20 beds. The construction was completed in September 1964. At that time the entire 55 bed unit became available and was placed into operation and use by the hospital.

In October 1965, the Keenan Clinic ceased operations as a general hospital. At that time the closing on the petitioner's application for federal funds had not been concluded for the lack of a final audit and examination as required by the Federal Act.

On December 3, 1965, the Keenan Clinic having ceased to operate as a hospital, the Rutland Hospital by letter requested the Board, in effect, to reconsider its prior action denying 100 per cent participation in federal funds for its constructed 55 bed unit. This request was denied without hearing on December 16. The hospital then requested a hearing which the Board held on January 20, 1966. At that time the hospital presented a formal amended application for federal aid based on the cost of its completed 55 bed unit.

The Board again denied the application at its March 17th meeting and notified the hospital of such action. The basis of the Board's refusal to approve petitioner's amended application was 'because of the retroactive feature' of the request.

The office of the writ of certiorari is to provide for a review of the judicial action of inferior courts, special tribunals, public officers and bodies exercising judicial functions in those instances where no other means of review is provided. Burton v. Selectmen, 124 Vt. 502, 208 A.2d 318; In re Petition of Town of Essex, 125 Vt. 170, 212 A.2d 623.

The writ issues only when there is no other adequate remedy at law, and brings up for review only substantial questions of law affecting the merits of the case involved in the proceedings below. In re Taconic R. & B. Ass'n, 125 Vt. 76, 209 A.2d 492.

Whether the writ issues is largely a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Petitions of Davenport
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 5 d2 Outubro d2 1971
    ...Emrick v. Connarn, 128 Vt. ---, 260 A.2d 380, 382; Petition of Mallary, 127 Vt. 412, 415, 250 A.2d 837; Rutland Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 126 Vt. 41, 44, 220 A.2d 722; Chase v. Town of Rutland, 47 Vt. 393, Preliminary to consideration of the questions of law presented by the ......
  • Roy v. Farr, 41-69
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 14 d2 Outubro d2 1969
    ...of judicial or quasijudicial acts. Under such circumstances, this Court will not order the board to act. Rutland Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 126 Vt. 41, 45, 220 A.2d 722; Couture v. Selectmen of Town of Berkshire, 121 Vt. 359, 361, 159 A.2d 78; Carpenter's Admr. v. Brown, 118 V......
  • Poulin v. Town of Danville
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 2 d2 Dezembro d2 1969
    ...right of the plaintiffs is not present in this case and there is no binding duty on the selectmen to act. Rutland Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 126 Vt. 41, 45, 220 A.2d 722. Payment of taxes under protest as provided by 32 V.S.A. § 4821 will not afford relief to the plaintiffs. P......
  • Royalton College, Inc. v. State Bd. of Ed., 42-68
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 27 d4 Fevereiro d4 1969
    ...practice to examine into the merits of the case on the question of whether or not the writ shall issue. Rutland Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 126 Vt. 41, 44, 220 A.2d 722. Thus it is not for this Court to pass upon the qualifications or shortcomings of Royalton College, Inc. as a......
  • 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