Gracie and Jeff Richardson, Guardians of Jeffery Richardson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Health

2024 WY 47, 547 P.3d 327
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedApril 29, 2024
DocketS-23-0094
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2024 WY 47 (Gracie and Jeff Richardson, Guardians of Jeffery Richardson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gracie and Jeff Richardson, Guardians of Jeffery Richardson v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Health, 2024 WY 47, 547 P.3d 327 (Wyo. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2024 WY 47

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2024

April 29, 2024

GRACIE and JEFF RICHARDSON, Guardians of Jeffery Richardson,

Appellants (Petitioners),

v. S-23-0094

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Appellee (Respondent).

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County The Honorable Jason M. Conder, Judge

Representing Appellant: Maureen Donohoue Howell, Donohoue Law Office, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Deputy Attorney General; Jackson M. Engels, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Melissa S. Bartley, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Bartley.

Before FOX, C.J., and *KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

* Justice Kautz retired from judicial office effective March 26, 2024, and, pursuant to Article 5, § 5 of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-106(f) (2023), he was reassigned to act on this matter on March 27, 2024. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume. BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Gracie and Jeff Richardson (the Richardsons) appeal the district court’s order affirming the Department of Health’s (the Department) decision to remove respite services from their son JMR’s individual plan of care under the Home and Community Based Services Waiver Program (HCBS Program). 1 We also affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] The Richardsons raise three issues which we rephrase as one:

Whether the Department acted in accordance with law when it removed respite services from JMR’s individual plan of care.

FACTS

[¶3] The relevant facts are undisputed. The Richardsons are the legal guardians of their adult son JMR who suffers from severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. JMR is unable to care for himself without the help of others and requires full-time care. He receives the highest level of Medicaid benefits offered through the HCBS Program administered by the Department. 2

[¶4] The HCBS Program offers numerous services to participants like JMR to meet their individually assessed needs. These services include, among others, adult day services, community living services, and respite services. The providers of these services are required to bill each service based on set rates, as listed in the Department’s Comprehensive and Supports Waiver Service Index (the Index). Relevant here, the Index requires providers of respite and adult day services to bill based on units of service, with a single unit of service defined as fifteen minutes. It also requires providers of community living services to bill at a daily rate, which is defined as a twenty-four-hour period. To direct these services, the Department establishes an individual plan of care and budget amount for each participant along with a care team. Each individual plan of care is updated annually.

1 The Department defines “Respite care” as services provided: “(A) On a short-term basis pursuant to the individual plan of care; (B) To a participant who is unable, unassisted, to care for himself or herself; and (C) Because the participant’s primary caregiver is absent or in need of relief from furnishing such services.” Department of Health, Medicaid, Current Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 § 3(b)(ccxviii) (2011 to current). 2 “Medicaid is a joint federal-state program designed to provide medical assistance to low-income families and individuals ‘to help such families and individuals attain or retain capability for independence or self- care.’” Fisher v. Okla. Health Care Auth., 335 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1396).

1 [¶5] In 2016, JMR was admitted to the Wyoming Life Resource Center for temporary services after flooding made his home unsafe. Prior to his discharge from the Center, the Department entered into a settlement agreement (2017 Settlement Agreement) with the Richardsons to establish an individual plan of care for JMR that permitted him to spend his individual budget amount on adult day services, residential habilitation services (community living services), and respite services.

[¶6] In 2021, the Department reviewed JMR’s individual plan of care pursuant to a quality improvement review. The Department discovered JMR’s providers had been billing for respite services at the same time JMR had been receiving community living services. Under the Index, providers are not authorized to bill for both the daily rate of community living services and the fifteen-minute units of respite services. The Department, relying on the Index, notified the Richardsons that it was required to remove respite services from JMR’s individual plan of care.

[¶7] The Richardsons responded by requesting an administrative hearing. The Department granted the request and referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). OAH conducted a two-day hearing wherein both parties presented witness testimony and exhibits. Soon after, the hearing examiner upheld the Department’s decision to remove respite services from JMR’s individual plan of care based on the Index. The Department issued a final decision adopting the hearing examiner’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Richardsons appealed to the district court raising several issues of law and fact. The district court affirmed. The Richardsons appealed to this Court raising only questions of law.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8] This Court reviews agency actions as if the case came directly from the agency and gives no deference to the district court. Monaghan Farms Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Albany Cnty., 2023 WY 31, ¶ 7, 527 P.3d 1195, 1201 (Wyo. 2023) (citation omitted). The scope of our review is guided by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), which requires this Court to set aside an agency decision found to be “not in accordance with law.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) (2023). We review de novo the Department’s conclusions of law and its interpretation of statutes and implementing regulations. Monaghan Farms Inc., 2023 WY 31, ¶ 8, 527 P.3d at 1201 (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

[¶9] The Richardsons argue the Index and quality improvement review are not properly promulgated rules under WAPA and thus the Department did not act in accordance with law when it relied on them to remove respite services from JMR’s individual plan of care. They also contend the Department violated the plain language of the 2017 Settlement Agreement by removing these services. We address each argument in turn.

2 I. The Index and the Department’s Quality Improvement Review.

[¶10] The Department’s rules and regulations, when adopted pursuant to statutory authority and properly promulgated, have the force and effect of law. Matter of ASA, 2018 WY 5, ¶ 22, 408 P.3d 791, 795 (Wyo. 2018) (citation omitted); see also Fullmer v. Wyo. Emp. Sec. Comm’n, 858 P.2d 1122, 1123–24 (Wyo. 1993). The Department “is bound to follow its own rules and regulations.” ASA, 2018 WY 5, ¶ 22, 408 P.3d at 795 (citation omitted). As we discuss below, the Department followed its own rules and regulations when it relied on the Index to remove respite services from JMR’s individual plan of care.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 WY 47, 547 P.3d 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gracie-and-jeff-richardson-guardians-of-jeffery-richardson-v-state-of-wyo-2024.