Richard v. Commissioner of Income Maintenance
This text of 573 A.2d 712 (Richard v. Commissioner of Income Maintenance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an administrative appeal from a decision of the commissioner of the department of income maintenance (DIM). The sole issue is whether the commissioner gave adequate public notice of his intention to adopt new Medicaid regulations. We agree with the trial court that the notice was adequate and therefore find no error.
The plaintiffs husband receives Title XIX (Medicaid) assistance. On June 27, 1988, DIM notified the plaintiff of a reduction in her husband’s benefits. This in turn resulted in a reduction in the amount of her husband’s income that was diverted to her.
On July 6, 1988, pursuant to General Statutes § 17-2a, the plaintiff requested a fair hearing to contest DIM’s action.1 On August 1,1988, a hearing was [603]*603held at the plaintiffs home. On September 8,1988, pursuant to General Statutes § 17-2b, the fair hearing officer issued a decision that concluded, inter alia, that as of October 1, 1988, the plaintiffs benefits would be reduced. On September 30,1988, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 17-2b and 4-183, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court2 claiming, inter alia, that the defendant’s action “was made upon unlawful procedure, and is clearly erroneous.” Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that public notice of the commissioner’s intention to adopt a new public assistance policy manual was inadequate and not in compliance with the applicable provision of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, General Statutes § 4-168 (a).3
On June 8, 1989, the trial court concluded that the commissioner’s notice to the public complied with § 4-168 (a), that the new public assistance policy manual that reduced the plaintiff’s benefits was therefore [604]*604validly promulgated, and rendered judgment dismissing the appeal. On July 2,1989, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. We thereafter transferred the matter to ourselves in accordance with Practice Book § 4028.
On appeal, the plaintiff asks us to focus solely on her claim that the notice furnished by the commissioner did not comply with § 4-168 (a) and, therefore, that DIM’s new public assistance policy manual was not promulgated in accordance with the legislature’s mandate; General Statutes § 17-3f (c); and that the new manual be adopted in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.4 Examination of the record discloses that on January 6,1987, DIM published a notice of intent to adopt regulations in the Connecticut Law Journal.5 6The notice stated, inter alia: “These new regu[605]*605lations are designed to set forth in clear and concise language the policies and procedures used by the department in implementing and enforcing federal and [606]*606state law. In particular, the regulations (Manual) restate and/or revise the policies and procedures of the Department as they relate to the eligibility requirements for such programs as Aid to Families with [607]*607Dependent Children, Medicaid, State Supplement, and Food Stamps and Refugee Assistance. The new manual contains all department policy regulations and substantive procedure which affect the rights or procedures available to the public pertaining to program eligibility. . . . Copies of the full text of the new manual are available at no cost upon request from the Policy Unit, Department of Income Maintenance, Hartford, Connecticut 06106. ...”
Section 4-168 (a) sets forth the required content of a notice of intent to adopt regulations. On January 6, 1987, the date the notice was published in the Connecticut Law Journal,6 subsection (a) (1) (A) specified in part: “The notice shall include (A) either a statement of the terms or of the substance of the proposed regulation or a description sufficiently detailed so as to apprise persons likely to be affected of the issues and subjects involved in the proposed regulation, (B) a statement of the purposes for which the regulation is proposed, (C) a reference to the statutory authority for the proposed regulation and (D) the time when, the place where and the manner in which interested persons may present their views thereon.”
The plaintiff first argues that the notice did not comply with subsection (a) (1) (A) in that it was not sufficiently specific so as fairly to advise those affected of the terms and substance of the proposed manual and the issues and subjects involved. We do not agree.
Subsection (a) (1) (A) requires either “a statement of the terms” or “of the substance” or a “description sufficiently detailed” all to the end that “persons likely to be affected” are apprised “of the issues and subjects involved . . . .” In this connection, the notice first states that the commissioner “proposes to adopt regulations replacing its State Social Services Policy Manual with a new manual.” It specifically recites that the [608]*608Manual “restate[s] and/or revise[s] the policies and procedures of [DIM] as they relate to the eligibility requirements for such programs as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, State Supplement, and Food Stamps and Refugee Assistance.” (Emphasis added.)
“Substance” defines the essential nature, essence or quality of a document or thing. Webster, Third New International Dictionary. Even the most casual reader of this notice has to be aware that: (1) the Social Services Policy Manual is being replaced; (2) policies and procedures concerning eligibility requirements are being restated or revised; and (3) the programs implicated include Medicaid. We conclude that this constitutes the fair “statement of the . . . substance” of the proposed revisions that § 4-168 (a) (1) (A) requires.
The DIM notice went on to list specifically, in their entirety, the manual’s sixteen chapter or section headings. These included, inter alia, “Treatment of Income,” “Standards of Assistance,” and “Calculation of Benefits.” The reader is thus specially notified “of the issues and subjects involved in the proposed regulation,” again, exactly as § 4-168 (a) (1) (A) directs.
The plaintiff next argues that the DIM notice did not comply with § 4-168 (a) (1) (B) in that it contained an inadequate “statement of the purposes for which the regulation is proposed.” In this connection, the DIM notice stated: “Statement of purpose: To implement the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes § 17-3f, as amended by Public Acts No. 85-564 and [No.] 86-415, directing the Commissioner of the Department of Income Maintenance to develop a new eligibility policy manual in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54, and authorizing the operation under said manual pending formal adoption.” Although this was a complete and accurate statement,7 the plaintiff argues that. [609]*609there was no statement of the purpose of any of the rule changes embodied in the manual. This was not required. Section 17-3f (c) did not mandate the promulgation of a new regulation but rather directed DIM to replace its policy manual, which was to be “adopted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 [Uniform Administrative Procedure Act].” Thus, in articulating a “statement of the purposes” as required by § 4-168 (a) (1) (B), DIM was charged with describing the reasons for the adoption of the entire manual, not the reason for the adoption of each of its parts as the plaintiff claims.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
573 A.2d 712, 214 Conn. 601, 1990 Conn. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-commissioner-of-income-maintenance-conn-1990.