Commonwealth Court Cases - Commonwealth Court Case Law from PA - Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

þÿ

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Pennsylvania Court Cases and Opinions - PA Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case was taken from the Pennsylvania Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

MOST CURRENT PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT CASES

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Clinkscales),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1057 C.D. 2001
:
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Timbers),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1058 C.D. 2001
:
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Brinkley),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1059 C.D. 2001
:
Argued: March 12, 2002
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN
FILED: April 15, 2002
Devereux Hospital Texas Treatment Network (Devereux) petitions for
review of an April 6, 2001 order and two April 9, 2001 orders of the Secretary of
the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). These orders upheld three orders of the

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Bureau), dated May 19, 2000, adopting the
recommendation of a Hearing Official to deny Devereux compensation for
inpatient treatment rendered to Keith Clinkscales, Khalid Timbers and Hakeem
Brinkley. We reverse.
Clinkscales was admitted to Devereux's psychiatric facility in Texas
on March 26, 1997, having been referred there by the Philadelphia Department of
Human Services (DHS).1 DHS reported to Devereux that all placement options
within Pennsylvania had been exhausted. At the time of admission, Clinkscales
had "a history of deterioration in behavior and diagnoses of post-traumatic stress
disorder, polysubstance abuse, rule out major depression and rule out psychotic
disorder." (Clinkscales Adjudication, Findings of Fact, No. 9.) While receiving
long-term psychiatric services at Devereux's facility, Clinkscales was very
aggressive and violent with his peers and with staff. Devereux discharged
Clinkscales on January 3, 1998 after the Philadelphia Habitual Offenders Unit and
Clinkscales' probation officer placed Clinkscales in another facility. (Clinkscales
Adjudication, Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-3, 9-11, 13.)
Timbers was admitted to Devereux's facility on March 26, 1997
pursuant to a court order dated March 11, 1997.2 Timbers had been incarcerated at

1 The record indicates that Clinkscales was adjudicated delinquent and committed to
Devereux's facility by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (R.R. (Vol. V) at
2599a.) The record also indicates that Clinkscales' date of birth is December 12, 1978; thus, he
was eighteen years old at the time of commitment. Id.
2 The record indicates that Timbers' date of birth is August 3, 1977; thus, Timbers was
nineteen years of age at the time of commitment. (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2598a.)
2

a youth detention center in Philadelphia for six months prior to his admission. The
reason for Timbers' admission to the facility was his polysubstance dependence
and a psychotic disorder. As of August 27, 1997, Timbers' condition changed to
the point where he became an appropriate patient for an alternate level of care.
Devereux discharged Timbers from the facility on October 20, 1997. (Timbers
Adjudication, Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-3, 8-10.)
Brinkley was admitted to Devereux's long-term treatment unit on
January 1, 1998, having been referred there by DHS.3 DHS reported to Devereux
that all alternative placement options had been exhausted. Prior to admission,
Brinkley had been in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Division and needed a
forensic-type psychiatric facility to control his behavior. Upon his admission for
long-term treatment at Devereux's facility, Brinkley's major problems were
aggressive behaviors, legal involvements, depressive symptomatology, auditory
hallucination, non-compliance with medication and multiple psychiatric
hospitalizations. Once admitted, Brinkley demonstrated serious outbursts of
aggressive behavior towards other residents. (Brinkley Adjudication, Findings of
Fact, Nos. 1, 4, 7-12.)
DHS encouraged Devereux to apply for a provider agreement with
DPW. Thus, in August 1997, Devereux sent DPW an application, describing the

3 The record indicates that the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County committed
Brinkley to Devereux's facility. (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2600a.) The record also indicates that
Brinkley's date of birth is November 5, 1979; thus, he was eighteen years of age at the time of
commitment. Id.
3

long-term inpatient psychiatric services available at the facility for older
adolescents. By letter dated August 27, 1997, DPW approved the application and
designated Devereux's facility as a Type 13 Medical Assistance (MA) Provider,
which is an acute, private, psychiatric hospital or unit. (Clinkscales Adjudication,
Findings of Fact, Nos. 6-8, 12; Timbers Adjudication, Findings of Fact, Nos. 4-6,
11; Brinkley Adjudication, Findings of Fact, Nos. 13-14, 17, 19.)
Subsequently, Devereux sought compensation from DPW for the
services rendered to Clinkscales, Timbers and Brinkley. However, in a letter dated
January 5, 1999, DPW denied Devereux compensation for services rendered to
Clinkscales from August 27, 1997 to January 3, 1998. (Clinkscales Adjudication,
Findings of Fact, No. 16.) In a letter dated December 1, 1998, DPW denied
Devereux compensation for services rendered to Timbers from August 27, 1997
through October 20, 1997. (Timbers Adjudication, Findings of Fact, No. 12.) In a
letter dated December 8, 1998, DPW denied Devereux compensation for services
rendered to Brinkley from January 28, 1998 through the time of his discharge.
(Brinkley Adjudication, Findings of Fact, No. 22.) Devereux filed timely appeals,
and hearings were held before a Hearing Official for the Bureau.
After considering the evidence presented, the Hearing Official
recommended that DPW deny the appeals. In the Clinkscales adjudication, the
Hearing Official explained that Devereux is an inpatient psychiatric facility, and
such institutions are precluded from billing for long-term care.4 The Hearing

4 The Hearing Official stated that, pursuant to 42 CFR §456.651, long stay services are
those provided after a total of sixty days of inpatient stay, or ninety days in the case of mental
(Footnote continued on next page...)
4

Official also stated that it was impossible to conclude from the record that
Clinkscales had better access to the care he needed at Devereux's facility or that
Devereux's facility was the only private psychiatric hospital facility equipped to
provide the type of care that Clinkscales required. (Clinkscales Adjudication at 6-
7.) With respect to Timbers, the Hearing Official explained that, once it was
determined on August 27, 1997 that Timbers was appropriate for an alternate level
of care, DPW had no obligation to pay for services rendered during the delay in
discharge. (Timbers Adjudication at 5-6.) As for Brinkley, the Hearing Official
based his recommendation, in part, on the same grounds as in the Clinkscales case.
In addition, the Hearing Official concluded that DPW had no obligation to pay for
Brinkley's treatment because Brinkley's admission to Devereux was unnecessary.
(Brinkley Adjudication at 8-9.)
By orders dated May 19, 2000, the Bureau adopted the Hearing
Official's recommendations. Devereux filed an application for reconsideration,
which DPW granted. However, by orders dated April 6, 2001 and April 9, 2001,
DPW upheld the Bureau's May 19, 2000 orders. Devereux now petitions this court
for review.5 DHS has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Devereux.

(continued...)
health services, during a twelve-month period beginning on July 1, not counting the days of stay
paid for wholly or in part by Medicare. (Brinkley Adjudication at 6.)
5 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were
violated, whether an error of law was committed or whether the necessary findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S.
§704.
5

I. Long-Term Treatment
Devereux first argues that DPW erred in concluding that, as a private
inpatient psychiatric facility, Devereux is precluded from billing for long-term
inpatient psychiatric treatment. We agree.
Devereux applied for enrollment as a provider of psychiatric services
to adolescents. (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2526a.) With its application, Devereux provided
a description of its "Long-Term Adolescent/Young Adult Program." (R.R. (Vol.
V) at 2528a) (emphasis added). Devereux also provided a copy of its "Long-Term
Hospital Criteria" for admission into the program. (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2546a)
(emphasis added). Thus, the application made clear that Devereux was requesting
approval for long-term treatment. By letter dated August 27, 1997, DPW accepted
Devereux's application to participate in Pennsylvania's MA program as a "private
psychiatric hospital." (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2547-48a.)
DPW's regulation at 55 Pa. Code §1151.43(a) governs payment for
inpatient psychiatric hospital services in a "private psychiatric hospital." The
regulation states, "For recipients age 21 and over and under age 65, payment for
inpatient psychiatric hospital services in a private psychiatric hospital is limited to
60 days per benefit period." 55 Pa. Code §1151.43(a). In other words, the
regulation only restricts payment for inpatient psychiatric services in a private
psychiatric hospital where the recipient is twenty-one years of age, or older, and
under sixty-five. The payment regulation places absolutely no limitation on
6

payments for inpatient psychiatric hospital services in a private psychiatric hospital
where, as here, the recipient of the services is under the age of twenty-one.6
Because DPW erred in concluding that Devereux was precluded from
billing for long-term inpatient psychiatric hospital services, DPW erred in denying
payment for services rendered to Clinkscales and Brinkley on that basis.
II. Justification for Out-of-State Placement
Devereux next argues that DPW erred in concluding that it was
impossible to determine from the record that Devereux provided better access to
the care that Clinkscales and Brinkley needed than an in-state facility or that
Devereux's facility was the only facility equipped to provide the type of care they

6 DPW relies on the definition of a "private psychiatric hospital" in the general provisions
of the MA regulations to conclude that Devereux may not bill for long-term psychiatric services.
The regulations define a "private psychiatric hospital" as "[a]n institution, other than a general
hospital, not directly operated or controlled by the Department that is engaged in providing acute
short-term psychiatric services on an inpatient basis." 55 Pa. Code §1151.2 (emphasis added).
However, this definition does not prohibit a "private psychiatric hospital" from providing long-
term inpatient psychiatric services. It merely indicates that an institution must provide at least
short-term inpatient psychiatric services to qualify as a "private psychiatric hospital."
Moreover, unlike the regulation at 55 Pa. Code §1151.43(a), the definition does not
specifically govern payment for inpatient psychiatric hospital services in a "private psychiatric
hospital." It is well established that we must construe regulations so that particular provisions
control the general. See Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S.
§1933; Highway News, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 789 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)
(stating that the rules of statutory construction apply to regulations). Therefore, the definition of
a "private psychiatric hospital" in the general provisions of the MA regulations does not control
the disposition of the payment issue here.
7

required.7 Devereux maintains that such issues are encompassed in the court
orders committing these individuals to Devereux's facility. We agree.
Under section 6352(a)(3) of the Juvenile Act, if a child is found to be
delinquent, the court may commit the child to a facility for delinquent children
operated under the supervision or direction of the court or other public authority
and approved by DPW. 42 Pa. C.S. §6352(a)(3). Such commitment shall be "best
suited to the child's treatment, supervision, rehabilitation and welfare...."8 42 Pa.
C.S. §6352(a) (emphasis added). In this case, the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County found Clinkscales and Brinkley to be delinquent children and
committed them to Devereux's facility, a facility supervised by a public authority
and approved by DPW. Thus, the court determined that Devereux's facility was
"best suited" to treat Clinkscales and Brinkley. If commitment to Devereux's
facility was "best suited" to the treatment needs of Clinkscales and Brinkley, then,
certainly, Devereux's facility provided better access to the care they needed and
was the only facility equipped to provide the type of care they needed.9

7 Under DPW's regulations, out-of-state services are not compensable unless (1) the
attending practitioner advises that there is better access to the needed care in another state and (2)
there is documentation to verify that the out-of-state facility is the only one equipped to provide
the needed care. See 55 Pa. Code §1101.32(b)(5); 55 Pa. Code §1151.50(a)(2)(ii).
8 Our supreme court has stated that the juvenile courts "are particularly well suited to
order relief that is treatment oriented" and, moreover, that "[t]reatment is the entire premise
underlying the juvenile court system." In re Tameka M., 525 Pa. 348, 358, 580 A.2d 750, 755
(1990).
9 DPW argues that there might have been an appropriate in-state facility for Clinkscales
and Brinkley. However, we point out that DPW has a statutory duty to notify the courts of
available secure beds for serious juvenile offenders and available general residential beds for
children adjudicated delinquent. Section 6353(c) of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §6353(c).
(Footnote continued on next page...)
8

Because DPW erred in concluding that it was impossible to determine
from the record that Devereux provided better access to the care that Clinkscales
and Brinkley needed or that Devereux's facility was the only facility equipped to
provide the type of care Clinkscales and Brinkley required, DPW erred in denying
payment for services rendered to Clinkscales and Brinkley on that basis.
III. Alternate Type or Level of Care
Devereux argues that DPW erred in denying payment for services
rendered to Timbers from August 27, 1997 through October 20, 1997 after it was
determined that Timbers was suitable for an alternate type or level of care. We
agree.
The commitment order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County constituted a legal determination that Timbers was suitable for placement
in Devereux's facility. Notwithstanding a finding to the contrary, until the court
issued a subsequent order declaring that Timbers was suitable for an alternate type
or level of care, Timbers was not suitable for a different placement as a matter of
law.

(continued...)
There is no finding here that DPW failed to notify the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County of available beds for delinquent children, and there is no finding that the court failed to
consider DPW's notice of available beds before committing Clinkscales and Brinkley to an out-
of-state facility. Therefore, we are not persuaded by DPW's argument.
9

Because there was an unmodified legal determination that Timbers
was suitable for placement in Devereux's facility, DPW erred in denying payment
for services rendered to Timbers based on the contrary view that Timbers was
suitable for an alternate type or level of care.
IV. Unnecessary Admission
Finally, Devereux argues that DPW erred in denying payment for
services rendered to Brinkley based on its finding that Brinkley's admission to
Devereux's facility was unnecessary.10 We agree.
As we have indicated above, Brinkley was admitted to Devereux's
facility pursuant to a commitment order issued by the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County. (R.R. (Vol. V) at 2600a.) The order constitutes a legal
determination that commitment in Devereux's facility is "best suited" to meet
Brinkley's treatment needs. Statutory law required such a commitment. See 42
Pa. C.S. §6352(a). Therefore, Brinkley's admission to Devereux's facility was
necessary, and DPW erred in determining otherwise.
Accordingly, we reverse.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge

10 DPW's regulations state that DPW will not pay an inpatient psychiatric facility for
unnecessary admissions. 55 Pa. Code §1151.48(a)(9).
10

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Clinkscales),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1057 C.D. 2001
:
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Timbers),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1058 C.D. 2001
:
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
Devereux Hospital Texas
:
Treatment Network (Brinkley),
:
Petitioner
::
v.
:
No. 1059 C.D. 2001
:
Department of Public Welfare,
:
Respondent
:
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2002, the orders of the Secretary
of the Department of Public Welfare, dated April 6, 2001 and April 9, 2001, are
hereby reversed.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge