KINGS REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. v. Premo

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406, 69 Cal. App. 4th 215, 99 Daily Journal DAR 463, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 456, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 29
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 13, 1999
DocketC027852
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406 (KINGS REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. v. Premo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
KINGS REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. v. Premo, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406, 69 Cal. App. 4th 215, 99 Daily Journal DAR 463, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 456, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

*217 Opinion

MORRISON, J.

In this dispute over cuts to reimbursement rates, plaintiff Kings Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Kings) appeals from a judgment denying its petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief. In the published portion of this opinion we uphold the practice of “incorporation by reference” of materials into published regulations. We address other points in the unpublished portion of the opinion. We shall affirm.

Background *

Discussion

I., II.*

III. Incorporation by Reference.

The Department of Rehabilitation (the Department) administers “habilitation” programs and reimburses providers of “work-activity programs,” among others. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 19350, 19352, subd. (e), 19355.) In aid of its mission, the Department issued a ratesetting manual, the Habilitation Services Ratesetting Manual (the Manual), which includes formulas for reimbursing providers. The Manual has not, itself, been promulgated as a published regulation. Kings maintains that the Manual is an illegal “underground regulation” in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq. (APA)). Kings makes a facial attack on the process of incorporation by reference, which it views as antithetical to the letter and spirit of the APA. We reject the claim.

The APA is partly designed to eliminate the use of “underground” regulations; rules which only the government knows about. If a policy or procedure falls within the definition of a “regulation” within the meaning of the APA, the promulgating agency must comply with the procedures for formalizing such regulation, which include public notice and approval by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). Failure to comply with the APA nullifies the rule. (Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a); Armistead v. State Personnel Board (1978) 22 Cal.3d 198, 204 [149 Cal.Rptr. 1, 583 P.2d 744].)

*218 The Department adopted a regulation as follows: “The Habilitation Services Ratesetting Manual dated July 1, 1983, and revised July, 1996 (hereinafter called ‘the Ratesetting Manual’) is regulations as defined by Government Code Section 11342 [subdivision] (g), and is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these regulations. Persons desiring copies . . . may purchase them from [the Department of General Services] at a price covering the cost of printing.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, § 7337.) Kings challenges the use of incorporated material, not the process by which the regulation was adopted.

OAL is given the broad authority to “adopt, amend, or repeal regulations for the purpose of carrying out” the APA. (Gov. Code, § 11342.4.) A regulation promulgated by OAL, set forth in full in the appendix, states in part: “Where a regulation which incorporates a document by reference is approved by OAL and filed with the Secretary of State, the document so incorporated shall be deemed to be a regulation subject to all provisions of the APA.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (e).)

The OAL regulation is not a statute, but it is a regulation approving the practice of incorporation by reference and it was promulgated by the very agency which regulates regulations. It is entitled to deference. (Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 753, 756-757 [151 P.2d 233, 155 A.L.R. 405].)

The fact that no statute explicitly authorizes the practice of incorporation by reference does not mean it is illegal; no statute specifically forbids the practice, either. Further, at least one statute assumes the practice is lawful. Government Code section 11344.6 provides in relevant part that: “The courts shall take judicial notice of the contents of each regulation which is printed or which is incorporated by appropriate reference into the California Code of Regulations as compiled by the office.” There is no reason to judicially notice illegal regulations, therefore we assume the Legislature has agreed with OAL’s determination that incorporation by reference can, in some cases, further the purposes of the APA. Kings points to the use of the word “appropriate” as a qualifier. Kings fails to explain how the manner of incorporation herein was “inappropriate,” and does not refute the import of this statute, which is that the Legislature expects some regulations will be incorporated by reference.

We disagree with the claim that the practice does not “carry out the provisions” of the APA within the meaning of Government Code section 11342.4. There is nothing “underground or covert” about the process, as employed herein. Anybody who wants to learn about ratesetting under this *219 program can consult the Code of Regulations index, find the regulation at issue, then write to the address listed and obtain a copy of the Manual at the cost of printing.

Kings complains that members of the public must purchase the Manual. This unheaded argument is in a footnote (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 15(a); Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325 [14 P.2d 532] [waived]), no authority or analysis is given (Diamond Springs Lime Co. v. American River Constructors (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 581, 608 [94 Cal.Rptr. 200] [waived]) and, as stated above, Kings has launched a facial challenge to the regulation. Kings states that the Department sends the Manual to service providers.

There are many agencies which of necessity establish comprehensive manuals, technical standards and so forth, often of interest to only a select few. The thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pages represented by these manuals would only further deluge the subscribers to the Code of Regulations, with no benefit to them or the public at large. Material may be incorporated by reference only if “it would be cumbersome, unduly expensive, or otherwise impractical to publish the document in the California Code of Regulations.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 20, subd. (c)(1).) That reflects good sense.

There is no evidence that the practice of incorporation by reference has been or can be used to “hide” a regulation. OAL exercises its function to scrutinize proposed regulations and sometimes rejects them when the rules regarding incorporation of material by reference are not followed. (See, e.g., Fellmeth, 15 Cal. Reg. L. Rptr., The PUC’s Electricity Deregulation Proposals: Point/Counterpoint (Spring/Summer 1995), p. 19 [failure to incorporate necessary form]; (Winter 1995) 15 Cal. Reg. L. Rptr., p. 114 [disapproval of incorporation of statistical analysis plan]; (Fall 1994) 14 Cal. Reg. L. Rptr., p. 42 [failure to identify incorporated forms]; (Winter 1994) 14 Cal. Reg. L. Rptr., p. 102 [failure to properly incorporate plan]; cf. (Winter 1994) 14 Cal. Reg. L. Rptr., p.

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

Related

In re Dohner
California Court of Appeal, 2022
640 Tenth, LP v. Newsom
California Court of Appeal, 2022
Missionary Guadalupanas of the Holy Spirit Inc. v. Rouillard
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
NILES FREEMAN EQUIPMENT v. Joseph
74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690 (California Court of Appeal, 2008)
Capen v. Shewry
54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
Sheyko v. Saenz
5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)
Sharon S. v. Superior Court
73 P.3d 554 (California Supreme Court, 2003)
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform v. Bonta
130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 823 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)
CAL. ADVOCATES FOR NURSING HOME REFORM v. Bonta
129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 406, 69 Cal. App. 4th 215, 99 Daily Journal DAR 463, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 456, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kings-rehabilitation-center-inc-v-premo-calctapp-1999.