Cherrie v. Virginia Health Services
787 S.E.2d 855
| Va. | 2016Background
- Two estates (executors of decedents who were former nursing-home residents) requested copies of the nursing homes’ written policies and procedures in effect during the decedents’ stays; the homes refused.
- Executors filed declaratory judgment actions seeking specific performance to compel production under Board of Health regulation 12 VAC § 5-371-140(G).
- The circuit court dismissed, concluding the regulation authorized enforcement only by current residents (not former residents). Cases were consolidated on appeal.
- The Department of Health/Board of Health regulations require nursing homes to make written policies available for review and provide administrative enforcement mechanisms (complaints, investigations, plans of correction, sanctions).
- The statutory enforcement scheme in Title 32.1 authorizes administrative sanctions and civil enforcement by the State Health Commissioner; it contains no express provision authorizing private parties to file civil actions to enforce Board regulations.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed dismissal on a different ground: no statutory private right of action exists to enforce the regulation, and the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot be used to create one.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 12 VAC § 5-371-140(G) creates a private right of action enforceable by former residents (estates) in circuit court | Estates: regulation grants a right to the documents and therefore authorizes private enforcement by current and former residents | VHS/State: statutory/regulatory scheme provides administrative remedies and Commissioner enforcement only; no private civil enforcement | Held: No private right of action exists; statutes do not authorize private enforcement in circuit court |
| Whether the Declaratory Judgment Act can be used to enforce the regulation by creating a private right of action | Estates: DJA allows courts to declare rights under statutes/regulations and compel specific performance | State: DJA is procedural and cannot create substantive rights or substitute for statutory authorization | Held: DJA does not create a substantive private right; cannot be used to manufacture standing to enforce the regulation |
| Whether the court should resolve whether “residents” includes former residents | Estates: broader reading includes former residents | State: narrower reading limits to current residents | Held: Court did not decide this statutory/regulatory-interpretation question because no private right of action exists; left unresolved |
| Whether administrative remedies provided by Title 32.1 preclude inference of a private right | Estates: implied private remedy is available despite administrative scheme | State: existence of administrative and Commissioner enforcement indicates exclusive remedies; precludes inferring private action | Held: The statutory scheme’s remedial structure supports rejecting an implied private right of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiser v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 285 Va. 12 (discusses distinction between cause of action and right of action)
- Small v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 286 Va. 119 (statutory standing requires legislature to grant right to sue)
- Vansant & Gusler, Inc. v. Washington, 245 Va. 356 (will not infer private right of action from bare statutory violation)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Bishop, 211 Va. 414 (Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural and does not create substantive rights)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural; substantive rights unchanged)