In the Matter of Unity Health Care, Class F Home License No. 352187 and Unity Home Care, Inc., Class A Professional Home Care License No. 353694.
A16-0682
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Unity Health Care held Class F (facility) and Class A (professional agency) home-care licenses and was inspected multiple times (2011–2013), producing numerous written correction orders and conditional licensing in Oct. 2011.
- Department surveys documented failures including inadequate wound and perineal care, improper sanitation of a PICC line, hosing a wheelchair-bound client with a garden hose, poor medication documentation, and repeated insulin dosing errors causing hospitalizations.
- Department sought revocation of the Class F license and denial of renewal for the Class A license under Minn. Stat. § 144A.46, subd. 3(a) and related rules; Unity requested a contested-case hearing.
- After a >30-day administrative hearing (record ≈15,000 pages), an ALJ recommended affirmance based on imminent danger and serious health/safety risks; the commissioner issued a final order revoking the Class F license, denying renewal of the Class A license, and affirming fines.
- Unity raised constitutional and procedural challenges (vagueness/overbreadth/taking; substantive and procedural due process; evidentiary rulings; need for mitigating-factor consideration; mootness; decision-maker bias; public policy). The court affirmed the commissioner and granted the department’s motion to strike certain brief portions/excluded exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute void for vagueness/overbroad | §144A.46(3)(a) is vague ("conduct detrimental" undefined; could punish staff conduct without managerial fault) and overbroad | Language is common, reasonable persons can understand "detrimental," and statute targets conduct violating home-care laws; no protected conduct implicated | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; valid exercise of regulatory power |
| Substantive & procedural due process | Revocation is arbitrary, denies substantive liberty (profession) and lacked adequate process/mitigation consideration | License regulation is rationally related to protecting vulnerable adults; Unity received extensive notice and a full contested-case hearing | No violation of substantive or procedural due process; rational-basis review satisfied; process adequate |
| Takings / property interest | Revocation is a taking of property | Licenses are privileges, nontransferable, and not compensable property | No unconstitutional taking; license not private property for Takings Clause purposes |
| Evidentiary/administrative procedure (hearsay, mitigation, tags) | ALJ relied on hearsay; failed to consider mitigating compliance; some tags (0030, 0690) legally unsupported | Hearsay is admissible if probative in administrative hearings; commissioner not required to apply mitigating-factor analysis; tags supported by record | No unlawful procedure or error of law; hearsay admissible; tags 0030 and 0690 properly issued |
| Substantial evidence / arbitrary & capricious / moot / bias / public policy | Revocation unsupported by evidence; arbitrary; moot because violations later addressed; decision-maker biased; revocation against public policy | Record contains substantial evidence of ongoing dangerous practices; collateral consequences remain; no proof of bias; policy arguments legislative | Commissioner’s order supported by substantial evidence; not arbitrary/capricious; case not moot; no demonstrated bias; public-policy objections not for court to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Minn. Power, 838 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. 2013) (agencies receive deference; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Machholz v. State, 574 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 1998) (presumption of statute constitutionality; burden on challenger)
- Gustafson v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 884 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. App. 2016) (discussion of substantive due process review)
- Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (professions not recognized as fundamental rights; subject to reasonable regulation)
- Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934) (public regulation of business subject to rational basis)
- Invention Mktg., Inc. v. Spannaus, 279 N.W.2d 74 (Minn. 1979) (general language does not automatically render statute void for vagueness)
- State v. Bussmann, 741 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2007) (void-for-vagueness principles)
- Hard Times Café, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. App. 2001) (general language alone insufficient for vagueness)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (prior investigative or adjudicative involvement does not automatically disqualify decision-maker)
- In re Wang, 441 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1989) (hearsay may support administrative disciplinary actions)