Uhler v. Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene

• Decision Date: 11 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 833,833
• Parties: Robert UHLER v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 282

45 Md.App. 282

412 A.2d 1287

Robert UHLER v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE.

No. 833.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

April 11, 1980.

Charles O. Fisher, Westminster, with whom were Walsh & Fisher, Westminster, on brief, for appellant.

Standish McCleary, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom was Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., on brief, for appellee.

Argued before MOYLAN, MOORE and WILNER, JJ.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal by Robert Uhler, the defendant-appellant, from an order of the Circuit Court for Carroll County which required him to comply with an administrative order of the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene (Secretary), barring him from operating a landfill on his farm. Mr. Uhler argues in this Court that the lower court erred when it ruled that he had forfeited his right to defend against enforcement of the Secretary's order because he had failed to pursue an appeal pursuant to Md.Ann.Code, art. 43, § 404 (1980). ¹ He also contends that the Secretary does not have jurisdiction over the landfill because it is not a system "for public use" within the provisions of Md.Ann.Code, art. 43, § 394 (1980).

I

Mr. Uhler purchased his farm in Finksburg in 1965. A large ravine, covering about five acres, was in existence when he took possession, and he immediately attempted to reclaim the land for farming purposes by filling the ravine with farm wastes. In addition, he asked his brother, who operated a hauling business, to deposit in the ravine any rubble that he had occasion to haul. This arrangement existed for five years prior to August 14, 1978. On that date Mr. Uhler was served with a written order issued by the Secretary commanding that: "All dumping at this site cease immediately. . . . The order also required him to cover the landfill with a minimum of two feet of earth and to grade and seed the area. In addition he was informed that: "Engineering plans and specifications . . . must be submitted . . . if the site is proposed for future use. . . . " A letter accompanying the order said: "If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to communicate with this office."

At the hearing below, Mr. Uhler testified that he called the office and spoke to Richard Nace, a State geologist. According to appellant:

"(Mr. Nace) said if there's any more trouble, he'd give me a call. Otherwise, if he didn't call me, the way I understood him, it would be all right to go ahead, that (the order) wouldn't apply to me."

It is undisputed that Mr. Uhler took no corrective action after talking to Mr. Nace in August, 1978.

On October 30, 1978, the Secretary filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court seeking a mandatory injunction and civil penalties against Mr. Uhler for violation of the August 14, 1978 administrative order. In his answer he claimed, inter alia, that the landfill was not operated "for public use" and that the Secretary's order "denied the defendant procedural and substantive due process."

In due course, a hearing was held in the circuit court, and testimony was taken from Norman Chapman, a consultant with the State, and Mr. Uhler. The court held the case, sub curia, and thereafter filed a "memorandum order" in which it held that Mr. Uhler had "forfeited his right" to contest the order of August 14, 1978 because he failed to seek relief under the procedure for judicial review provided by Md.Ann.Code, art. 43, § 404 (1980), supra, n.1.

On appeal his main contention is that the Secretary's order did not comport with the requirements of due process, specifically that, "(t)he failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard renders the Secretary's Order void." We agree.

II

Preliminarily, we observe that the lower court was inaccurate in holding that the remedy established by Md.Ann.Code, art. 43, § 404 (1980) was available to Mr. Uhler at the time he received the Secretary's order. That avenue of relief was not then available; his proper course, at that juncture, was an appeal to the Board of Review of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, pursuant to Md.Ann.Code, art. 41, § 206B (1979 Cum.Supp.). ² Commission on Medical Discipline v. Bendler, 280 Md. 326, 373 A.2d 1232 (1977). Indeed, had appellant filed suit under § 404, his action would have succumbed before a defense that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 330, 373 A.2d at 1234. ³

The question properly before the lower court, therefore, and now confronting this Court, is whether Mr. Uhler's failure seasonably to pursue his administrative remedy, at the time the order issued, constituted a waiver. In our view, there could have been a waiver but only if Mr. Uhler had received proper notice from the Secretary of his right to an administrative appeal, a fundamental requirement of due process. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

Although, as the Supreme Court observed in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), "the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite," clearly Mr. Uhler's real property, including the use of his ravine, is protected. With respect to protected interests, the Supreme Court has also held, in language strikingly apposite here:

"While '(m)any controversies have raged about * * * the Due Process Clause,' . . . it is fundamental that except in emergency situations (and this is not one) due process requires that when a State seeks to terminate (a protected) interest . . . , it must afford 'notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case' before the termination becomes effective."

Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1591, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original), quoting in part from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 656, 94 L.Ed.2d 90 (1950).

Here, without any prior warning or notification of any kind, appellant's right to the use of his ravine was terminated "immediately." The ex parte order was itself the property owner's first notification of alleged illegal landfill activity; and neither the order nor the accompanying letter informed him of his right to an administrative appeal pursuant to Md.Ann.Code, art. 41, § 206B (1979 Cum.Supp.).

In a recent case involving "(l)ay consumers of electrical service," ⁴ whose service had been terminated, the Supreme Court addressed itself to the constitutional requirement of notice in this manner:

"Petitioners' notification procedure, while adequate to apprise the Crafts of the threat of termination of service, was not 'reasonably calculated' to inform them of the availability of 'an opportunity to present their objections' to their bills. . . . The purpose of notice under the Due Process Clause is to apprise the affected individual of, and permit adequate preparation for, an impending 'hearing.' " Notice in a case of this kind does not comport with constitutional requirements when it does not advise the customer of the availability of a procedure for protesting a proposed termination of utility service as unjustified. As no such notice was given respondents despite 'good faith efforts' on their part they were deprived of the notice which was their due."

Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1563, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (citation omitted) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

Notice is an especially compelling requirement in circumstances such as exist here where the order was issued ex parte and against a layman without knowledge of the intricacies, indeed the existence, of administrative and judicial procedures. Clearly, the Secretary's offer of assistance if there were "any questions," does not immunize the "notice" provided here against Mr. Uhler's due process claim. He was never told that he had important administrative and judicial remedies which could be lost by delay in exercising them, nor was he told what those rights were.

"(W)hen notice is a person's due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The notice provided to Mr. Uhler in the instant case was not reasonable, did not rise above a "mere gesture," and certainly did not comport with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. See...