Opinion
C.A. No. K10A-06-004 WLW.
Submitted: December 17, 2010.
Decided: February 17, 2011.
Upon Appellee's Motion to Dismiss. Granted.
Charles F. DiMeglio, pro se.
Jennifer G. Brady, Esquire and John A. Sensing, Esquire of Potter Anderson Corroon, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for Appellee.
ORDER
ISSUE
Whether the Delaware Patients' Bill of Rights ( 16 Del. C. 1101 et. seq.) or the Delaware Administrative Procedure Act ( 29 Del. C. § 10142) provide the Court with appellate jurisdiction to review a hearing officer's decision regarding a nursing home's proposed discharge of a patient.
FACTS
Charles E. Dimeglio ("Mr. Dimeglio") is a 62 year-old resident at a nursing ho me operated by Pinnacle Rehabilitation and Healthcare ("Pinnacle"). Delaware law provides that patients at nursing facilities must be given notice and a hearing before being discharged. The relevant state law, entitled the "Patients' Bill of Rights," provides:
No patient or resident shall be transferred or discharged out of a facility except for medical reasons; the patient's or resident's own welfare or the welfare of the other patients; or for nonpayment of justified charges. If good cause for transferal is reasonably believed to exist, the patient or resident shall be given at least 30 days' advance notice of the proposed action, together with the reasons for the decision, and the patient shall have the opportunity for an impartial hearing to challenge such action if the patient or resident so desires.
Id. The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services has responsibility for investigating grievances under the Patients' Bill of Rights. 16 Del. C. § 1126.
Pinnacle decided to discharge Mr. Dimeglio from the nursing home after determining that he no longer requires full-time nursing care. Mr. Dimeglio sought a hearing to challenge Pinnacle's decision to discharge him. A hearing was held on May 19, 2010 before Michael Steinberg, a third-party hearing officer employed by MSG Group, Inc. Testimony was taken from Mr. Dimeglio as well as doctors, nurses, and administrators (Pinnacle Employees) who have cared for him at the nursing home. The Pinnacle employees universally testified that Mr. Dimeglio is healthy enough to be discharged from the facility. Several witnesses noted that it is impossible to provide 24-hour care to Mr. Dimeglio anyway because he regularly leaves the nursing home for hours at a time to travel around town in his motorized wheel chair. Mr. Dimeglio's own testimony was not particularly helpful to his case. He stated that he prefers to leave the nursing home for appointments with outside doctors because he believes the Pinnacle medical professionals are unsuitable.
MSG Group, Inc. is a private contractor that conducts hearings for the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services' Division of Long Term Care Residential Protection Unit. See Contract Hearing Officer Services, http://hearingofficers.com/medmed.htm (last visited Feb. 16, 2011).
The hearing officer issued a 15-page decision, upholding Pinnacle's decision to discharge Plaintiff. He specifically found that Mr. Dimeglio no longer requires 24 hour care. Therefore, he concluded that Pinnacle's decision to discharge Mr. Dimeglio is consistent with The Patients' Bill of Rights. The decision is dated May 19, 2010.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Dimeglio filed "an appeal" of the hearing officer's decision with Superior Court. He initially named MSG Group, Inc. and the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services as defendants. He named Pinnacle as an additional defendant on August 9, 2010. The claims against MSG Group, Inc. and the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services have been dismissed. Only the claim against Pinnacle remains. Pinnacle has filed a motion to dismiss under two theories. First, it contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the hearing officer's decision. Second, it argues that the case must be dismissed because Mr. Dimeglio failed to add it as a party to this action until after the expiration of the 30 day period for filing suit under the Administrative Procedure Act.
29 Del. C. § 10161.
Standard of Review
The Court may dismiss an action pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(1) whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.The standard of review on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) is well-settled. A motion to dismiss is decided on "whether a plaintiff may recover under any conceivable set of circumstances susceptible to proof under the complaint." Dismissal will only be warranted when "under no reasonable interpretation of the facts could the complaint state a claim for which relief might be granted."
Id.
Hedenberg v. Raber, 2004 WL 2191164, at *1 (Del. Super.).
DISCUSSION
Superior Court exercises limited appellate jurisdiction over administrative actions. Appellate jurisdiction exists only if it has been specifically granted by statute. Mr. Dimeglio contends that jurisdiction exists under the Patients Bill of Rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court will consider each proposed jurisdictional basis in turn.The Patient's Bill of Rights provides the first potential basis for this Court's appellate jurisdiction. Section 1121 provides that patients have the right to an impartial hearing before being discharged from a nursing home. It does not provide for appellate review of hearing officer decisions. However, Sections 1117(C) and 1125 empower the Department of Health and Social Services to enforce the provisions of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is unclear whether Mr. Dimeglio has sought further administrative review of the hearing officer's determination. Regardless, the Patient's Bill of Rights does not provide jurisdiction for this Court to hear the case.
11 Del. C. §§ 1119(C), 1125 . The Department apparently determined to enforce the section's requirement for third-party discharge hearings by entering a contract with MSG Group, Inc to provide hearings. See Contract hearing Officer Services, http://hearingofficers.com/medmed.htm (last visited Feb. 16, 2011).
The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provides the second possible basis for appellate jurisdiction over this case. It provides that Superior Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final agency decisions. However, it only applies to a specific, enumerated list of agencies, which does not include the Department of Health and Social Services. Thus, even assuming that the hearing officer was the Department's agent — and thus that his decision can be imputed to it as a final agency decision — the APA does not apply. The APA does not provide a jurisdictional basis for this appeal.
29 Del.C. § 10142.
Id.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether Rule 15(c) would apply to cure the failure to name Defendant within the period for filing an appeal under the APA.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a hearing officer's decision made pursuant to the Patients' Bill of Rights. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.IT IS SO ORDERED.