Whittington v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources

Decision Date20 November 1990
Docket NumberNo. 8910SC405,8910SC405
Citation398 S.E.2d 40,100 N.C.App. 603
PartiesRankin WHITTINGTON, Daniel C. Hudgins, Dr. Takey Crist, Dr. Gwendolyn Boyd and Planned Parenthood of Greater Charlotte, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. The NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, David Flaherty, in his capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, The North Carolina Social Services Commission, and C. Barry McCarty, in his capacity as Chairperson of the North Carolina Social Services Commission, Defendants.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Ferguson, Stein, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Gresham, P.A. by Leslie J. Winner and Thomas M. Stern, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellees.

Maupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A. by Charles B. Neely, Jr. and Robert A. Cohen, Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.

ORR, Judge.

We begin by noting that although this case arises in the context of controversial regulations pertaining to state funded abortions, this case is not about abortions. Rather, it is a case solely about administrative rule-making authority and whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in regard to that question. For the reasons below, we find that the trial court did not err.

Under N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1983), summary judgment is appropriate only when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Under the rule, a party is entitled to summary judgment if it can establish through the pleadings and affidavits, that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, that only issues of law remain and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hagler v. Hagler, 319 N.C. 287, 354 S.E.2d 228 (1987); Johnson v. Holbrook, 77 N.C.App. 485, 335 S.E.2d 53 (1985).

In its judgment after the hearing on the summary judgment motion, the trial court concluded that "there are no material facts in dispute that are necessary to determine these claims and [these rules] ... are each ultra vires and beyond the scope of the administrative authority of the Social Services Commission as a matter of law."

The following are the rules in issue:

Counseling required by Chapter 479, Section 93(5) of the 1985 Session Laws shall include the opportunity, but not the requirement, for all persons determined eligible for service to personally view fetal models showing the growth and development of the human embryo and fetus, said models to be obtained from regular medical supply houses or medical schools.

The director of any county department of social services receiving information from an applicant for State Abortion Funds alleging rape or incest as a basis for eligibility for assistance from the fund shall report such incident of rape or incest to the district attorney having jurisdiction in the area in which the incident occurred.

Rule 10 N.C.A.C. 42W .0003(c) and .0005 (hereinafter referred to as "the fetal model rule" and "the reporting rule"). The reporting rule has been interpreted by the Social Services Division to require the director of each county department of social services to report only the fact that the rape or incest incident occurred and may exclude details of the incident and the victim's name.

Before addressing the specific statutory provisions upon which the parties rely to support their opposing positions, we must first set out the following general rules regarding statutory construction. As early as 1915, our Supreme Court stated that when construing a statutory provision, the words in the statute are to be given their natural or ordinary meaning, unless the context of the provision indicates that they should be interpreted differently. Abernethy v. Commissioners, 169 N.C. 631, 86 S.E. 577 (1915). Moreover, when one statute speaks directly and in detail to a particular situation, that direct, detailed statute will be construed as controlling other general statutes regarding that particular situation, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary. Food Stores v. Board of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966).

It is only when the language of a statute is unclear or ambiguous that a court should attempt to interpret the language of a statute in accordance with what the court presumed the Legislature intended. State v. White, 58 N.C.App. 558, 294 S.E.2d 1 (1982). In enacting a law, we must presume that the Legislature acted with full knowledge of prior and existing law. State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641, 174 S.E.2d 793 (1970). Finally, statutes relating to the same subject should be construed in para materia, in such a way as to give effect, if possible, to all provisions without destroying the meaning of the statutes involved. See State ex rel. Utilities Comm. v. Thornburg, 84 N.C.App. 482, 353 S.E.2d 413, disc. review denied, 320 N.C. 517, 358 S.E.2d 533 (1987).

We first note that the broad general rule-making authority in the executive branch of government for matters relating to human resources is found in Article 3 of Chapter 143B of the General Statutes known as the Executive Organization Act of 1973. Within this article, there is a specific legislative grant of rule-making authority to the Social Services Commission in N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143B-153 which states in pertinent part:

There is hereby created the Social Services Commission of the Department of Human Resources with the power and duty to adopt rules and regulations to be followed in the conduct of the State's social service programs with the power and duty to adopt, amend, and rescind rules and regulations under and not inconsistent with the laws of the State necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of this Article. Provided, however, the Department of Human Resources shall have the power and duty to adopt rules and regulations to be followed in the conduct of the State's medical assistance program.

(1) The Social Services Commission is authorized and empowered to adopt such rules and regulations that may be necessary and desirable for the programs administered by the Department of Human Resources as provided in Chapter 108A of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 143B-153 (1987). Pursuant to that authority, over the course of years, the Social Services Commission has made numerous rules and regulations covering the gamut of programs within its scope of services.

Beginning in 1978, the General Assembly began providing limited appropriations for state funded abortions. 1977 N.C.Sess. Laws 2d Sess. c. 1136. No specific legislation pertaining to this program was enacted other than the line item budget provisions enacted in the spending legislation passed by the General Assembly. In the 1985 Session Laws, Chapter 479, Section 93, the General Assembly for the first time enacted specific legislation dealing with the operation of the State Abortion Fund and the legislative policies applying to it.

Section 93 states in pertinent part:

LIMITATIONS ON STATE ABORTION FUND

Sec. 93.

(1) It shall be the policy of the State of North Carolina that the State Abortion Fund shall not be available for abortion on demand but shall be limited in accordance with this section.

. . . . .

No rules adopted pursuant to this section may require a woman to report rape or incest within any specified time.

(4) Responsibilities of the County Department of Social Services. Services provided under this section shall be administered uniformly in every political subdivision of the State. Applications for service shall be made to county departments of social services.

Eligibility for the services under this section shall be determined by the county department of social services under the provisions of subdivision (3) of this section. The county department of social services shall arrange for the delivery of these services with appropriate medical providers.

(5) Counseling and Referral Services. The county department of social services shall provide counseling to all persons determined eligible for service under this section. Counseling shall include discussion of pregnancy options, including adopting, and family planning information.

. . . . .

The county department of social services shall provide to all persons determined eligible under this provision family planning counseling, and referral for family planning consultation and supplies, or voluntary sterilization.

In cases where the applicant chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, the county department of social services shall refer the individual for all appropriate services, including licensed adoption services, maternal health care services and financial assistance.

(6) Reimbursement to Providers. Services shall be reimbursed at no less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for outpatient services and not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for inpatient services.

No services may be reimbursed where federal funds are available.

Providers receiving funds under this section may not collect additional funds from individuals receiving services.

Notwithstanding any provision of law, the setting of rates or fees for such services; the setting of eligibility standards or application requirements; the determination of the components of income that are considered in computing family monthly gross income; designation of services to be provided or the designation of providers shall be done only by enactment of law by the General Assembly. For purposes of administering this section, the following regulations which are codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code, to the extent that they are consistent with this section, are specifically authorized by the General Assembly: 10 NCAC 42W .0001-.0003, which were filed and effective as of January 1, 1983; 10 NCAC 35E .0103, Income Eligible Status, which was filed and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Williams v. Williams
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 1995
    ... ... No. 9419DC320 ... Court of Appeals of North" Carolina ... Nov. 21, 1995 ...       \xC2" ... of the decisions of our courts, see Whittington v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 100 N.C.App ... ...
  • Wake Cares Inc. v. Wake County Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 2008
    ... ... No. COA07-810 ... Court of Appeals of North Carolina ... May 6, 2008 ... [660 S.E.2d ... Statutes § 385(b)). See also Whittington v. N.C. Dep't of Human Res., 100 N.C.App. 603, ... and to prudently utilize the tax resources" which fund that opportunity ...        \xC2" ... ...
  • Carter-Hubbard Pub. v. Wrmc Hosp. Operating, COA05-420.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 2006
    ... ... No. COA05-420 ... Court of Appeals of North Carolina ... August 1, 2006 ... Page 683 ... Whittington v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 100 N.C.App. 603, ... ...
  • Andersen v. Baccus
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 16, 1993
    ... ... No. 921SC155 ... Court of Appeals of North Carolina ... Feb. 16, 1993 ... , 361, 163 S.E.2d 372, 375 (1968); Whittington ... v. N.C. Dep't of Human Resources, 100 ... ...
  • 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