Chase Home for Children v. New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth & Families
162 N.H. 720
| N.H. | 2011Background
- DCYF appeals a superior court order awarding $3,553,479.55 to the residential childcare providers for underpaid FY 2004–2006 rates.
- PSAs governed by He-C 6422 set per diem rates for services to Medicaid beneficiaries; non-Medicaid services were paid fully and PNMI was billed to Medicaid.
- Rates for non-Medicaid children were effectively treated the same as Medicaid rates in practice, though PSAs formally cover Medicaid services only.
- DCYF argued budget constraints and statutory limits justified underpayment and proposed rate changes tied to appropriations.
- Trial and appellate history: prior panels found underpayment but lacked authority to order retroactive payments; later opinions held rates must meet He-C 6422, leading to this damages award.
- Court held DCYF could be ordered to pay despite funding concerns under state contract and waiver provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express and implied contracts existed. | Chase/Providers: contracts formed; PSAs express, implied-in-fact for non-Medicaid. | DCYF: no meeting of the minds on rates; condition on appropriations. | Yes; both express and implied contracts formed; rates not conditioned on appropriations. |
| Whether the statute of limitations bars FY 2004–2005 claims. | Providers timely pursued through exhaustion; tolling applied during admin proceedings. | Limitations barred claims before hearings resolved. | No; tolling applied; claims timely within three years. |
| Whether separation of powers and RSA 9:19 prevented judgment against the State. | RSA 491:8 waives immunity; damages proper. | Separation of powers and funding constraints bar judgment. | No; RSA 491:8 permits judgment; funding mechanics addressed by statute. |
| Whether providers have a private cause of action under RSA chapters 169-B, 169-C, 169-D. | Statutes authorize enforcement via private action. | Sovereign immunity blocks private actions. | Ruling on contract claims suffices; private action left undecided. |
| Whether DCYF violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | Underpayments and lapses breached good faith. | Not central to damages calculation. | Addressed but not dispositive of the damages award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Behrens v. S.P. Constr. Co., 153 N.H. 498 (2006) (objective standard for meeting of the minds; factual question)
- Syncorn Indus., v. Wood, 155 N.H. 73 (2007) (meeting of the minds; objective assent)
- Morgenroth Assoc’s. Inc. v. Town of Tilton, 121 N.H. 511 (1981) (implied-in-fact contracts require offer, acceptance, consideration, meeting of minds)