*1 Sanches, in Appeals recognized "[the v. CONCLUSION testimony that the attack came as a mate's] judgment of the court is RE- him complete surprise to cannot be the meas VERSED, and this case is REMANDED for State, custodian, duty as ure of the his proceedings opin- further consistent safeguard protect him from the harms ion. reasonably it should foresee." In deter Department's mining scope duty, the cireumstances of
we consider all of which notice, including was on module, atmosphere
racial information relationships, inmate
about Mattox's potential
identification of assailants. When
we consider all of these cireumstances-in particular report Mattox's assertions that he HENDRICKS-PEARCE, Anita as Person- ed that he feared Aaron's friends and that Representative al of the Estate of one of Aaron's
Wilkerson was friends-we Pearce, Appellant, Dewell W. genuine conclude that Mattox has raised a v. foreseeability. issue fact as to Alaska,
STATE DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS, Appellee. OF recognize precise We sub stance and extent of Mattox's communica No. S-14820. tions to officials remain somewhat un discovery responses Supreme clear because his Court of Alaska. ambiguous. certain issues are But his state April "particularly,
ment [he] was afraid of trouble from his roommate or his room closely
mate's friends" follows his assertions "[rlequests were [correctional made to requests and that
officers]" "[hlis were re give
fused." must him We the benefit of inferences, question
reasonable and the
the notice to the correctional offi question developed
cers is a factual to be at summary judgment
trial. Our standard re
quires that we view the available facts in the
light most favorable to Mattox as the non-
moving party. Viewing these facts in that.
light, gen we conclude that Mattox raised a Depart
uine issue of fact as to whether the
ment was on notice of the risk of attack not cellmate, Aaron,
only from Mattox's but also
from other inmates associated with Aaron.25
Wash.,
(Alaska1995).
895P.2d
490-93
State,
This
v.
99 N.Y.2d
754 N.Y.S.2d
Sanchez
(2002).
will be a matter for the trial court to address on
621,
Ted Law Office of Ted vich, Anchorage, Appellant. House, Attorney Dale W. Senior Assistant General, Anchorage, and Michael C. Ger- General, Juneau, aghty, Attornеy Appel- lee. FABE, Justice, WINFREE,
Before: Chief MAASSEN, BOLGER, Justices. OPINION BOLGER, Justice.
I.
INTRODUCTION
malprac-
A
recovered a medical
judgment against
tice
the State of Alaska
Department of Corrections. But
DOC
when
paid
judgment,
expenses
deducted
it had incurred for unrelated medical care
provid-
ka Statute 88.30.028
prisoner's
outside
sets out the
expenses
for medical
incurred
brought
seeking a
DOC then
an action
ers.
during
incarceration3
DOC has
also
declaratory judgment
had the stat-
05.121,
adopted
regulation,
22 AAC
pris-
utory right
to reimbursement
from the
prisoner's responsibility
pay
outlines
expenses
on his
oner for medical
incurred
services,
particular
ment for these
focus
appeal,
estate
behalf.
In this
co-payment system.
on the
argues
only prisoners with access to the
specified funding sources listed in the statute
Litigation
Appeal
B. Prior
And First
for the cost of outside medical care.
are liable
underlying
Most of the
facts of this case
conclude that
the statute
entitles
But we
already
been reviewed
this court in
DOC to reimbursement
from a
re-
State, Department
Corrections v. Hendricks-Pearce.
gardless
pro-
of whether the medical care is
4
Dewell Pearce was a
or made available
vided inside
*4
onеr from
to
During
2008.5
his incar
through
provider.
also con-
an outside
We
provided
ceration the State
Pearce medical
clude that the common fund doctrine does
conditions;6
care for several
paid
the State
require
DOC to share the cost of the
$147,494.94
providers.
to outside medical
attorney's
the medical
prisoner's
fees for
custody,
inWhile
Pearce sued the State for
malpractice action.
malpractice
medical
and was awarded a
$369,277.88judgment against the State in
II.
AND
FACTS
PROCEEDINGS
paid
The
part
judgment
2008.7
State
of the
Legal
A.
Framework
$140,847
May
but withheld
as reim
expenses
bursement
for medical
that were
The State has a
and constitution
injuries giving
unrelated to the
rise to the
obligation
provide necessary
al
to
medical
July
malpractice
2008 the State
suit8
prisoners regardless of their abili
care to all
declaratory
regard
filed an action for
relief
ty
pay.1 Although
provides
to
the State
ing
right
its
to reimbursement.
through
employees
medical care
DOC
(in-house
care),
contractors
medical
some
parties disputed
The
whether
the State
require
by out
medical conditions
treatment
entitled to
from Pearce.9
was
reimbursement
(outside
care)2
providers
side
medical
Alаs Because Pearce had been released before the
State,
(5)
33.30.011(4)(A);
guardian
Dep't
parent
prisoner
1. AS
Corr. v. Hen-
or
of the
if the
age
(Alaska 2011)
prisoner
is under the
of 18.
dricks-Pearce,
Hen P.3d
33.30.011(4)(A);
State,
(citing
(b)
AS
Abraham v.
require prison-
The commissioner
shall
(Alaska 1978);
P.2d
Rust v.
ers who are without resources under
of this
(Alaska 1978)).
pay
of medical
... care
section
costs
provided
by
department.
to them
At a
Hendricks-Pearce,
(citing
State house and the second distinction disagreed compared prisoners speci- on whether AS parties access funding applied to former after fied listed in subsection 83.30.028 .028(a) custody.10 superior their release from to those without. that AS 33.30.028 did not court determined argued Pearce the statute distin- It apply prisoners.11 to former therefore guishes types between two of medical care- dismissed the State's suit and ordered (in-house by "provided" DOC medical (the $140,847 pay State to Pearce amount the care) and care "made available" original had withheld from the medical State (outside care)-and that under sub-
malpractice judgment) plus interest. .028(b), prisoners section who lacked the appeal, this court reversed the On .028(a)-specified funding required sources are pri ruling.12 "[the We stated that pay only "provided for care to them the mary goal reducing medical department." of AS 38.30.028 is Pearce therefore concluded "preventing cos ts"13 and observed that only prisoners spec- with access to those collecting prisoners to funding the State from ified sources were liable for the сost possible extent would contravene fullest medical care outside "made available" to 14! cost-saving purpose." the statute's We them. Pearce contended that his purposes therefore held that for the of AS supported regu- the statute was the DOC "prisoner" 33.30.028 the term includes former concerning co-payments. lation pri argued attorney's Pearce also that his fees soners.15 *5 any recovery should be deductible from made separate This court remanded two issues- by the State under the common fund doe- yet upon-to superior then not ruled trine. (1) court: whether AS 38.30.028 entitles the State to reimbursement for the cost of out argued liability The State that for the cost side medical care from a without the imposed of outside medical care is on all funding sources identified AS 33.30.028, regardless under AS - - - (2) 33.30.028(a); whether the State's .028(a)-specified funding access to the allowed, recovery, subject if was to a claim sources, legislative history and that the does attorney's fees costs under the com support a distinction between medical mon fund doctrine.17 "provided" care and care "made available." It contended that the statute itself made no Subsequent Appeal
C. Remand And distinсtion between in-house and outside regulation medical care and that the cited parties' arguments 1. The Pearce was irrelevant to the inter remand, parties On both moved for sum- pretation question regulation because that mary judgment. distinctly Each offered a co-payments concerned rather than reimb different of AS 33.30.028. Finally, ursement.18 argued the State argued Pearce the statute allows reim- any recovery subject it made was not ato bursement for the cost of outside medical pro attorney's rata reduction for fees. only specified funding care from the .028(a). identified in subsection Pearce's superior analysis 2. The reading of the statute rested on two distinc- tions: the first type superior distinction related to the The court ruled in favor (whether of medical care at issue it was in- on both It issues. determined that AS 10. Id. 16. Id. at 1093-95. 11. Id. at 1091. 17. Id. at n. 25.
12. Id. at 1093. 05.121(b) (providing prison- 18. See 22 AAC Id. at 1092. financially co-payment ers are liable for a for in- care). house medical Id. at 1093. Id. question terpretation is a of law to which we entitled DOC to reimbursement 33.30.028 apply independent judgment.21 prison our Howev of outside medical care the costs specified who lacked the ers like Pearce er, agency's interpretation "an of a law with identified in subsection funding sources jurisdiction help in its area of can resolve 028(a). It determined subsection lingering ambiguity, particularly when the .028(a) categories two of medical identified agency's interpretation longstanding."2 avail "provided" and that "made care-that applies fund Whether common doctrine prisoner. But the court conelud- able" question to this case is also a of law that we .028(a) assigned financial ed that subsection independently.23 review categories of care to the for both prisoner. The court determined that IV. DISCUSSION "provided" distinction between care and care only relevant in subsec "made available" is A. A Prisoner Is Liable For The Costs .028(b), requires which some level of tion Of Medical Care Provided Or Made payment "pro for care when the care is " Available. department.19 prisoner]
vided to [the legislative history Turning to the _ above, _ As noted under AS the court found that 33.80.028(a) "the .028(b) prisoners' to deter frivo- was intended provided of medical ... costs or made than to limit lous use of medical rather is, ... available to a .028(a). prisoner's liability under subsection section, pris that the rec- The court also found added.) (Emphasis following ..." oner. The grant legislature's оrd reflected the intent to subsection, 33.30.028(b), AS states that "[the ability to recover the full cost of State require prisoners shall who are commissioner point present medical care "if at some pay without resources under ... or future the had sufficient funds." costs of medical ... care to them court also ruled that the com minimum, department. At a applicable be mon fund doctrine was not required pay portion oner shall be *6 attorney cause Pearce and his did not confer upon ability to costs based upon through a benefit the State the medical malpractice lawsuit. It therefore concluded pay.” recovery pro was not to a DOC's statutory interpret we this When attorney's rata fees and award reduction for meaning language begin plain we with the of judgment against ed Pearce's estate in the statutory legislative history $149,730.95, text.24 The including attorney's amount of appeals rulings. fees.20 Pearce both suggest a differ of a statute can sometimes language meaning, plainer ent but "the of III. OF STANDARD REVIEW statute, contrary convincing the more 25 if legislative history leg must be." "Even primarily mat This case involves a contrary' statutory interpretation. Statutory history in islative is 'somewhat to the ter of State, Admin., 33.30.028(b). Bartlеy Dep't Teacher's Ret. 19. AS v. of (Alaska 2005) (citing Bd., 1254, 110 P.3d 1261 superior 20. The court's order awards DOC a State, Revenue, Oil v. 560 P.2d Union Co. Dep't of $12,720.60 $137,010.35 plus principal amount of 23, (Alaska 1977)). $149,730.95. attorney's in fees for a total of The superior indicate how the court record does not Pulp Corp., 920 P.2d 23. See Edwards v. Alaska $137,010.35; figure the State arrived at the of (Alaska 1996). $147,494.94 claimed to have on outside spent withheld for Pearce and - $140,847.00 judgment award in from the final Pub. 288 P.3d Ward Dep't Safety, of par- malpractice (Alaska 2012). the 2008 medical case. Neither ty appealed has the amount of the award. omitted). (internal Id. marks quotation State, Dep't 21. Native Vill. Tununak v. Servs., (Alaska Health & Soc. 2013). namely, legislature's regard- plain meaning still that the silence
plain meaning of a controls." prisoner ing the situation which a has no addition collateral resources warrants the to (a), argues that under subsection Pearce (b) provision relieving subsection of a prison- to a "provided" services are in-house prisoner pay of all to for out- services are "made er and outside medical prisoner if the side services even has ade- argues prisoner. a Pearce available" to quate personal pay resources to for thоse prisoner that a who has subsection means services. special other resources under no insurance or (a) co-pay in- required pay a is vein, In the same the dissent ar required pay services and is not house reading gues that our of the statute renders anything for outside medical services. (a) payers the list of collateral subsection response, argues the State that all medical prisoner respon if the redundant because "provided" are both and "made services costs, listing all of then sible for his medical available" to a who receives medical potential payment collateral sources for superior that this care. The court concluded However, unnecessary. enumeration distinction makes no difference this case possible collateral sources serves at least (a) lia- because subsection makes (1) purposes: gives poten it notice to three all care. ble for the costs of medical payers they may tial collateral be liable in- We conclude that they if for medical costs are associated with a terpretation this most consistent statute is (2) statute; prisoner as described in the it plain meaning. lаnguage with its guidance provides about their for all makes a liable (8) payment coverage options; it regardless "pro- medical care of whether it provides the DOC with a list of alternative prisoner. vided" or "made available" to the payers to collect from. These are reasonable (b) requires payment Subsection minimum purposes give meaning statutory to this minimum, commissioner, terms: at a language. require prisoners adequate must without re- satisfy requirements To of AS co-payment make a services 33.30.028(b), adopted regulation "provided" to them. But this subsection (b)(1) found at AAC 05.121. Subsection does not set a maximum for ser- regulation requires to make a "provided," nor limita- vices does set co-payment for medical services "made available" tions for services prisoner by department through de- prisoner. partment employees or contractors. Subsec- argues The dissent that our (b)(2) requires arrange tion superfluous statute renders *7 payment coverage obtain from one (a) making "subject clause subsection to" responsible parties more of the set out in AS (b). However, under our inter- 33.30.028(a) for services pretation, subsection a reasonable reflects through departmеnt employees or contrac- presumption lability that there will be dual tors. pay- prisoner for the and the listed collateral (b): ers, subject regulation supports which is made to subsection portion This of the the payers, if there are no collateral and the distinction between in-house services and full, prisoner pay is otherwise unable to that outside services Pearce relies on. But regulation the commissioner must collect at least a mini- the does not conflict with our payment prisoner reading mum from the for all in- of the statute. Subsection of the reading house services. Even if our statute mandates that the commissioner "subject charge prisoners statute did render the to" clause at least a minimal amount redundant, regula- such an closer to rendered. in-house services The negative impli- implements properly the text than the substantial tion that command and proposed by dissenting opinion: goes regula- cation Like the no further. Ass'n, chorage Dep't Emps. Police Coxe, 26. Estate Kim ex rel. Alexander v. of (Alaska 2013) (Alaska 2012)). (citing Oels An- divesting prisoner ity prisoners, preventing to former says nothing of tion lacking collecting resources State from to the possible extent fullest would contravene prisoner adequate if the has outside services cost-savingpurpose the statute's pay and is not those serv personal resources Indeed, regulation makes no ices.27 justified by another interest evident from in which legislative provision at all for the situation the face of the statute or its history.[28] prisoner without collateral resources has re services, appropriate ceived outside which is case, superior this court's decision to light on the issue. of the statute's silence prisoner's personal among include a wealth reading argue One could that our of dual those resources to reimbursement portions regula- would render with the primary purpose consistent statute's example, incomplete tion or redundant. For reducing the DOC's medical costs. 05.121(e) prisoner may that AAC states "a Moreover, legislative record reflects an health charged be for the full costs of advantage take intent financial providers], [provided services outside re- prisoner might resources to which a injury, inju- a self-inflicted or an sulting from hearing access. In a before the House Fi ry to the or to another Committee, Representa nance a member of resulting from an assault or other violation of tive Mulder's staff noted that "there will be facility rules or state law...." This subsec- coverage individuals ... that will have other 83.30.028(a) unnecessary tion seems if AS legislation or resources" and that al "[the makes the liable for all medical care. Department secondary lows the to become a as a clarification But we read this subsection payer primary provider." health care department may that the collectfull The staffer also stated that "the intent is to injury from a who inflicts an without advantage allow the to take regard co-payment to the minimum coverage other that is available or to access apply. Interpreted in
would otherwise this indepen someone resources fashion, regulation conflict with does not dently wealthy." sug These statements 83.30.028(a). reading the our of AS gest that the committee intended that a interpretation of The this oner's wealth be included within the statute is also consistent with its coverage of this statute. history. already recognized We have primary purpose of this statute is to that, argues than The dissent rather cost- reduce medical costs: saving generally, had a more goal specific purpose in mind when it drafted рrimary of AS 83.30.028 is reduc-
ing legislation medical costs: that led statute: "to deter frivolous complaints statute's enactment and the overuse of medical ser- the reimbursement argues controlling was directed at the costs in- vices." And the dissent institutions, specific goal, perfectly consistent curred in correctional and the more while costs, proposed overarching desire to cut "out- sponsor statement indicated the an weighed any subsidiary goal recovering measures would reduce some of the costs Although agree we do not with that [the State] of inmate health care and allow costs." true, view, budget its limited on its true even if it is taken as our to focus *8 achieving Although history of the statute is better suited to legislative mission. this deterrence. explicitly extending does not address Habil- contrast, regulation 27. In state a differ- Hearing does Finance Comm. on Minutes, 29. House 20, 219, 1995) Leg. (Apr. department ent situation in which the will not HB. 19th ist Sess. pursue payment: inspections, where certain ex- (testimony Legislative DeWitt, Assis- of Dennis aminations, testing added). required Mulder) are other state (emphasis tant Eldon to Rep. regulations necessary protect health or are 05.121(c). of others. See AAC Hearing Minutes, Finance Comm. 30. House 1995) Leg. (Apr. Sеss. H.B. 19th ist DeWitt, Hendricks-Pearce, (inter- Legislative (testimony Assis- 1092-93 of Dennis
28. at Mulder) added). Rep. (emphasis omitted). tant Eldon nal citations quotations country reading of this a Medical services in this are ex
Under our
costs,
tremely expensive
patients,
liable for medical
those
prisoner will be
for all
both inside
Making
and outside
walls.33
law-abid
pris
and outside the
rendered both in-house
on,
ing
responsible
or not he has collateral
re
whether
Alaskans
for their own health
certainly
will
deter
sources. This rule
excusing prisoners
decisions
from
of medical services more
deeply
oners from overuse
such
could be considered
un
relieving
respon
Indeed,
than a rule
a
of all
paying
fair.
if the cost of
for a
DOC,
sibility.
If Pearee's
were
prisoner's
health care is absorbed
nothing
adopted,
there would be
to deter a
public
then the
will
that
bear
cost
taxes or
seeking outside care other
foregone
from
opportunities.
requirement
that he
than the
first obtain a
summary,
history
legislative
is con-
But,
provider.
an in-house
referral
from
sistent
a natural
of AS
prior approval
required, a
whether or not
33.30.028(a), requiring
to be liable
liability for the cost of outside
for the cost of all medical services
will
treatment
also act as a reasonable deter
prisoner.
or made available to the
The im-
rent. This is the same reasonable deterrent
plementing
regulation is not
inconsistent
patients
prison; any
that affects
outside a
interpretation.
with this
court
may reasonably
patient
choose to decline un
properly concluded that Pearce was liable for
services,
necessary
especially
if he
payment of the cost of outside medical care
no
resources.
If
has
this statute
during
him
made available to
his incarcera-
unnecessary
was intended to deter
treatment
tion.
by holding prisoners
financially responsible
decisions,
for their
treatment
such deter
B. The Common Fund Doctrine Does
wealthy
mitigated
rence will be
if
Apply
Not
To The
Reim-
State's
expenses.
of their medical
are relieved
bursement Claim.
Thus,
why wealthy pris
there is no reason
argues
supe
Pearce also
that
exempted
oners should be
from
in a
pro
rior court should have deducted a
rata
designed
bill
either to deter over-use of med
attorney's
pur
share of the
fees he incurred
ical services or to reduce costs. The dissent
suing
malpractice judgment
the medical
ing opinion suggests
possible
that one
moti
pay
the funds the State retained to
for his
exemption
vation
such an
could be to medical care. The common fund doctrine
poverty
reduce
and recidivism. But there is
provides
litigant
"lawyer
that a
who recov
legislature
no indication that
believed
persons
ers
common fund for the benefit of
making prisoners
responsible
for their
other than himself or his client is entitled to
promote
own bills would
recidivism. From
attorney's
a reasonable
fee from the fund as
reviewed,
history
we have
implicated
whole. The doctrine is
time
likely
seems more
con
litigant's
one
success releases well-defined
controlling
cluded that
these medical costs
group
benefits for a limited and identifiable
budget
will allow DOC "to focus its limited
of others."
mission,"
is,
on its true
to maintain
facilities,
provide necessary
correctional
The common fund doctrine has been
treatment,
programs
applied
subrogation
and to establish
and class action cases
protect
public
promote
attorneys
are calculated to
plaintiffs
where the
obtained a
reh abilitation.32
specific recovery
for the benefit of other
AM),
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
10:16
Hendricks-Pearce,
39 example, employee when an parties.35 For expenses, unrelated medical but the State injury wrongful special malpractice on a had no lien on recovers his recov- party, proa rata against claim a third ery. attorneys death any Pearce's did not create attorney's special.fund that benefitted the employee's the fees so the share of compen from the workers' commonfund costs is deducted apply doctrine does not to this Likewise, injury.36 sation lien for the same recovery. a medical lien for hospital when a accrues injured patient, pa to an the v. CONCLUSION attorney fees must deducted before
tient's be 88.30.028(a) conclude that We AS allows paid lien from a settlement for those the the DOC to seek reimbursement for the costs injuries.37 of outside medical and that the common But common fund doctrine apply fund doctrine does not to this case. general obligations should not be extended to superior therefore AFFIRM the We court's plaintiff's injury- that existed before the judgment. dependent not obligations that were on fund. In creation of a settlement Alaska STOWERS,Justice, participating. v. Settle Native Tribal Health Consortium Funds, approval this Court cited with ment FABE, Justice, Chief with whom Supreme Mexico Court's decision the New MAASSEN, Justice, joins, dissenting. beneficiaries, distinguishing indirect such as FABE, Justice, Chief with whom holders, mortgage utility creditors and MAASSEN, Justice, joins, dissenting. directly hospital benefits from a hospital jurisdictions have de lien.38 Other view, my In the court's apply clined to the common fund doctrine to incorrect, AS 88.30.028 is and traditional general plaintiff simply because creditors of statutory construction-looking methods of recovery plaintiff's creates a new asset.39 text, legislative history to the statute's cases, plaintiff acting is not on these purpose, longstanding interpretations of ad pursuing in claim. behalf of its creditors its regulations, policy ministrative consider independent are The creditors' claims require opposite interpreta ations-all claim; plaintiff's the debts creditors tion. I would hold that AS 88.80.028 does regardless litiga exist of the outcome of the lacking not rendеr a collateral re tion. (a) person sources enumerated case, ally of medical care ob liable for costs expenses
In this the medical Pearce Accordingly, providers. tained from outside inju- unrelated to the incurred were respectfully join I dissent and do not malpractice. ries he sustained from medical plurality opinion.1 The State became Pearce's creditor for his 751, Pulp Corp., (2005); 920 P.2d
35. Edwards v. Alaska
72,
803,
836 N.E.2d
811
Hilton Oil
(Alaska 1996) (applying
analy-
fund
756
common
Co., S.A.,
1141,
v. Oil
659 So.2d
Transp.
Transp.
case); Cooper Argonaut
sis to class action
v.
Ins.
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995);
1154, n.
Villanueva
7
Cos.,
525,
(Alaska1976)(applying
P.2d
527
556
1141, 1147
430,
175
419 A.2d
Wolff,
N.J.Super.
compensation
(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1980); Leischner v. Alld
doctrine to workers'
reimburse-
753,
1234,
statute).
ridge,
ment
114 Wash.2d
1237
(1990) (en banc).
word, sentence, provision or of a statute to responds my argument by The court force, effect, purpose, and some asserting subject-to that clause is not provisions superfluous.'" that words or are no (b) superfluous because subsection directs today "step(s]l 12 The court over the payment prisoners DOC to collect from un engag[es] legislation" line of in der certain conditions.14 This sim assertion 3 (a)'s by reading 1 out subsection sub ignores ply meaning "subject to" in the ject-to clause the statute. (b) statutory phrase "subject of this see text, judicial redrafting
I would avoid of a tion." The court would read such which (a)'s by interpreting plainly assignment enactment limits subsection (b)'s require- liability by demanding statute as written: Subsection it be read in conjunction with in recoup ment that DOC some of the costs for a limitation subsection (b), "provided" by merely indicating to the in-house care DOC for those as reader: "And exists, prisoners although without enumerated subsection also it has no sources limit, subsection must means of the effect here." The court then claims that (a)'s clause, subject-to assignment if our of the statute did subsection "elven redundant," liability. only interpretation pre- 'subject render to' clause redundancy serves all the words of the statute would "is closer to the text" than 33.30.071(a) 33.30.028(a) added). current version of AS to declare that (emphasis AS responsibility providing "the neces- [State's] sary medical services for remains Dictionary (6th ed.1990) 10. See Brack's Law 1425 the commissioner of corrections "[Iliable, subordinate, ... (defining "subject to" as AS under subservient, to; inferior, governed or obedient 33.30.028"). that; by; provided provided; answera- affected for"); Dictionary ble WesstEr's New IntErnationat Borough Corp., v. Exxon Kodiak Island (2d ed.1959) ("Being contingency under of; (Alaska 1999) (quoting (some dependent upon exposed 757, v. contin- Rydwell (Alas- action);-with Anchorage gent (emphasis original)). Dist., 526, Sch. 864 P.2d 530-31 to." 1993)). ka legislature routinely provision 11. The makes one 289, (Alaska 13. Gottschalk v. another, "subject limiting par- in a statute to" 1978) Armao, (quoting 446 Pa. Commonwealth ty's liability resulting provision by from the first (1972)). referencing provision way 286 A.2d a second in such a as See, provision. to subtract from the first Op. at 9-10. e.g., (amending § ch. SLA 1995 the then- my interpretation But my interpretation.15 responds hypothesizing The court three from, to, no addition subtraction purposes enumerating calls for collateral sources. All it the text of the statute. alteration of plausi But none seem of the court's reasons meaning acknowledging the requires enumerating ble. The court asserts to," reading in con "subject the two elauses (a) "gives notice to employed junction, respecting the means potential payers," it could but *12 text legislature when it chose the hardly it be news to an insurer that is liable My interpretation does not AS 33.30.028. for medical costs covered its contract with implication";16 negative create "substantial hardly the insured.19 It could be news to a rather, explicit statutory di it follows the agency provide that it would government (a) conjunction in rective to read subsection people qualifica benefits for who meet (b). with, by, limited subsection and as hardly tions for benefits.20And could be interpretation The court's of AS 88.30.028 they parents guardians may news to surplusage problem. creates another Sub be liablе for the medical care of their minor (a) five sources section enumerates children.21 'The court also asserts that enu "responsibfle}" for the in-house and that are "provides prisoners guidance meration with prisoners. care costs of If outside medical coverage options," about their (a) the court were correct that subsection provide but the Alaska Statutes 22 gives prisoner responsibility for all costs generally thought rules of law and are not care, types incurred for all of medical then providing non-binding for financial as means specific collateral enumeration prisoners. advice to And the court asserts be redundant. Even without enumer would "provides that enumeration the DOC with a ation, DOC could still invoice those who are 3} from,2 payers to list of alternative collect already derivatively prisoner's liable for the anyone already but DOC could collect from care, prisoner's health such as the insurer or liable for a health care even with public agency providing to the benefits theory, out enumeration. Under prisoner. only possible purpose for enu legal the statute's effect would not be thus (a) meration of collateral sources in enumeration, by omitting altered one iota would not render the enumeration mere sur- surplus- and the court does not resolve this limit, conjunction plusage would be to Moreover, age problem. there is no indica subject-to subsection and the clause of legislative history tion whatsoever in the (a), liability prisoner subsection for certain non-legal had such rea types prisoner of care where the lacks an enumerated source.17 enumerating sons for collateral sources. 33.30.028(a)(1) (making types 15. Id. at 10. 19. See AS certain "responsibility" "pris- of medical care the of the insured"). oner's insurer if the prisoner 16. 1d. 33.30.028(a)(2)-(4) (making 20. See AS certain 17. Enumeration of sources does types "responsibility" of medical care the of the not, own, third-party liability on its create on the Department of Health and Social Services part anyone. third-party In order to have the Department the United States fairs, of Veterans Af- 33.30.028(a), "responsib[le]" by deemed AS prisoner eligible," "if the and the United already eligible must be for benefits States Public Health Service or the Indian public agency plan from a insurance an Service, Health "if the is a Native Amer- legisla- Indeed, such costs. covers state ican and is entitled to medical care from those simply power ture have the make a would not agencies groups"). agency federal like United States "responsib[le]" prison- of Veterans for a Affairs 33.30.028(a)(5) (making 21. See AS certain types already pro- er's medical costs unless federal law "responsibility" "par- of medical care the responsibility. Accordingly, vided for such guardian ent or if the rely may third-party court on the creation of 18"). age under the non-surplusage purpose as for enu- (a). meration in subsection Op. at 10. Op. at 10. Id. sum, effectively special parole in opinion de- order to remove the court's by omitting it from its letes text public paying from the the burden of (a) assigns costs.) conclusion that subsection main health care their all medical costs to the personal primary purpose That the statute's is to ignores the prisoner. The court's conclusion supports deter overuse of medical resources subject-to from the statute as well as clause plain-text interpretation that subsection Only the enumeration of collateral sources. (a) assigns personal liability by eliminating language critical the statu- assigns personal for all in-house but it to create tory prоvision can the court read liability only prison for outside care where a lia- assignment the unconditional (a). er has a collateral source enumerated in that the court finds bility for all medical care Prisoners are free to seek in-house medical today. in AS 38.80.028 volition, making services on their own thus The court's is also contra copayment through personal liability a useful purpose. dicted the statute's It is clear *13 complaints. deterrent to frivolous medical history legislative from the of AS 38.80.028 copayment But for a for legislature that the intended this statute treatment outside staff would not serve prisoner medical com to deter frivolous goal deterring frivolous overuse of plaints and the overuse of medical services.24 prisoners medical services because receive It is also clear that this deterrence rationale only upon outside medical treatment referral outweighed any subsidiary goal recovering Simply put, from in-house staff26 (Indeed, all of the cost-sav costs.25 almost standing gatek with DOC medical staff as history ings legislative discussion in the re eepers, there is no frivolous overuse of out entirely an statute volved around different medical side resources would be de part that was of the same bill and would terminally prisoners eligible by personal liability copayments.27 ill terred make certain might paperwork DeWitt testified to the House result be the time the 24. Staffer Dennis done, "designed money Representative Finance Committee that the statute is there is no return." complaints." act as a deterrent to frivolous to simply Bunde a went on to state that "that's Similarly, Judiciary DeWitt told the Senate Com- they're token so that reminded of their Department mittee that the statute "allows cooperation in their rehabilitation or whatev- billing Corrections to establish a mechanism for going any money er.... not to make neces- [It's help prisons medical services within to control sarily Department of I for the Corrections.... services, medical similar to a deductible a just want to make sure that we understand we're policy." traditional health insurance Assistant making impact not while we do this." fiscal Attorney General Michael Stark informed the committee, passed it When the bill was out of legislation House Finance Committee that "the indicating received "zero fiscal notes" that it was complaints" will deter medical and that frivolous expected impact budget. I4. not to legislation designed prevent the harm the was from the fact that "institutionalized stemmed pro- "to 26. DOC's brief states that the rationale populations mani- often include individuals that making re- vide ... a disincentive to frivolous complaints in which is no fest medical there quests apply ... to care re- for care does Representative basis in fact." Eldon Mulder told providers because outside ceived from outside thing whole "[the the House committee that specialist referrals are made at the direction a need for a doctor so to make certain there is Minutes, they Policy know it costs to see a doctor." H. also DOC of the DOC staff." See Judiciary Hearing ("The H.B. 19th Department Comm. IV.D.4 & Procedure 807.02 (Mar. 1995). Leg., may specialists use consultants and as needed 1st Sess. provide prisoners as out- health care services to 25. DeWitt testified to the House committee that patients through hospitalization. The health co-payments "the would be small" because the with the Su- in coordination practitioner, attempt statute ""isan to allow the special perintendent, shall initiate referrals securing get opposed control on utilization as services and routine consultations services. Representative revenue." Mulder stated to the non-emergen- approve all Medical Director must "[this committee that is one of those areas referrals."). cy they trying where bit of cost are to do little added) prevention" (emphasis Spe- while DOC asserts, any explanation, without 27. The court Jerry cial Assistant Shriner "stressed that collec- prisoners requirement obtain DOC that the collecting would and the cost tion be difficult seeking obtaining approval outside care before Represen- could exceed the amount collected." of outside medi- will not deter frivolous overuse he wouldn't at it tative Con Bunde "stated look care; goal money, really recapture then concludes that the of deter- much and the net cal Thus, high generality purpose the statute's is furthered at a level of sufficed to an- it; question presented. Accordingly, used to enact swer the the text the today purport give interpretation of that text does we did not the final word on contrast, legislature's goal. purpose By of AS 38.80.028. not further the question this case raises the of the more history, Despite legislative clear this statute; specific purpose prof- one primary purpose of court concludеs that "the purpose-raising fered revenue-favors one this statute is to reduce medical costs."28 proffered pur- while another by quoting The court reaches this conclusion pose-deterrence of frivolous use of medical prior interpreting dicta from one of our cases interpretation. services-favors a different AS 33.80.028 in which we held that the stat above, legislative history As discussed applied prisoners well ute to former as as clearly indicates that deterrence of frivolous case, prisoners current .29In that we stated: primary purpose overuse was the of AS history "Although legislative does not 83.30.028. . explicitly extending liability to for address prisoners, today preventing mer the State from The court deletes from the statute subject-to collecting to the fullest extent clause and the enumeration of cost-saving (a), possible would the statute's contravene and then purp Citing only very by relying reaches its conclusion on an ab- ose."30 general legislative legislative purpose unsup- statement intent from a stract statement of issue, addressing today's ported by legislative history legis- case a distinct court or the used, including "prisoner's person Properly concludes that lative tеxt. intent *14 among clarify statutory text, al wealth those resources can but the intent must carefully with the sup- reimbursement is consistent stat be discerned and should never primary purpose reducing plant plain meaning ute's of unambiguous the DOC's of text. medical costs." The single court relies on a statement in legislative history support The court is incorrect in its conclusion its conclu primary that purpose legislature of the statute is sion that intended for AS 33.830.028(a) through liability reduce DOC's medical costs cost for personal establish recovery. mistakenly The court relies on outside medical care. Its reliance mis is regarding legislative pri- placed. dicta intent in our quotes testifying The court a staffer interpreting or decision in AS 33.30.028. In the House Finance Committee that case, legislation we addressed an issue for which was intended to reach "individuals beyond go coverage there was no need to a conclu- . that will have other or re statute, sources," purpose including sion stated "the resources someone independently wealthy." that is The court highest generality, at the level of was cost savings. reducing pieces But frivolous use of DOC concludes from these of evidence that medical services is a mеasure saves "the committee intended that a costs. had personal We no reason to detail these wealth be included within the cover age legislative of this statute." histo specific cost-saving goals, more such as de- terring ry certainly suggest over-use of in-house medical ser- does legislature that the vices, examining legislative purpose because sought prisoners personally to make liable ring frivolous overuse of outside medical care Hendricks-Pearce, 29. Corr. v. Dep't of by assigning personal will instead be served lia- (Alaska 2011). 1092-93 bility such for care when lack enumer- Op. ated collateral sources. at 13-14. But is 30. Id. at 1093. unclear how care, outside medically necessary DOC, pre-approved by could ever be frivolous. Op. at 31. 12. The behavior that the court claims must be de- nonexistent, simply terred is definition. The "reading (emphasis claim that its of the statute is Id. at 12-13 and omission from achieving better suited to ... deterrence" of friv- opinion). olous overuse of outside medical is thus
utterly unsupported. Id. at 13. Id. at 13. Id. at 12. matter, contrary today. to the court's conclusion expenses. For that at least some (a). (b)(1) legislative prisoner person text of subsection does the Subsection makes the so Thus, history on this appeals ally "financially responsible" in costs unnecessary. general (b)(2) But this point in-house, are curred while subsection con in simply is irrelevant of intent statement personal spicuously omits declaration of My interpretation of AS 88.30.028 case. responsibility this financial for outside medical liability for at least assign personal would instead directs to "ar specific ques- costs. The more some medical range payment for ... ... from one more today court is whether AS tion before the responsible parties set out in AS lability assigns personal 33.30.028 33.30.028(a)." The most natural received in- those cases where language is not prisoner received house care and where the personally financially responsible for outside care and also has enumerated collat- outside medical care when he lacks enumerated col resources, also or whether the statute eral lateral sources. The court concludes that assigns personal in those cases regulation "the does not conflict with [its] prisoner received outside care and where the statute," reading of the which assumes that resources. lacks enumerated collateral ultimately liable for the entire end, absolutely points to no the court cost of all medical services received support reconstruction of the abstract for its prisoner. But the court never addresses the purpose animating this nor does it conspicuous assignment lack contrary respond to or refute the voluminous (b)(2) financial in subsection legislative history. regulation phrasing or the indirect interpretation is also inconsis The court's "arrange for." If the fact that a longstanding interpretation of tent with the potentially "responsible party set out in AS regulations. In 22 the statute DOC's own prisoner personally 33.30.028"made the re (AAC) 05.121, Alaska Administrative Code sponsible for outside care even authority granted by implemented sources, be an without collateral it would odd regula AS 33.30.028. The phrase assign personal turn of indeed to (b)(1) that "a specify tions prisoner by directing prison *15 the to a financially co-pay responsible oner is for a "arrange payment" er for ... from him to provided ment for health services self, particularly in when DOC the immedi department through depart prisoner the regulation ately prior subsection of the has 34 employees designated ment or contractors" already demonstrаted that it knows how to (b)(2) specifies that "a while subsection assign personal liability directly. department arrange oner shall for the coverage obtain from one or view, my language In the responsible parties in more of the set out AS sufficiently history of AS 88.30.028 are clear 38.30.028(a), prisoner if the receives health I that would hold for Hendricks-Pearee depart provided through care services not if strength their alone. But even the stat designated contractors." employees ment case, meaning ambiguous ute's were 35 longstanding interpretation of AS DOC's ambig any lingering in 33.30.028should resolve regulations interpret These AS 38.30.028 (That adopted contrary a uity.37 DOC has my interpretation accord with of the statute policies within the 05.121(b)(1). determination of fundamental 34. AAC functions"); scope agency's statutory 05.121(b)(2). AAC Grunert, State, Alaska Bd. Fisheries v. of (Alaska 2006) (stating that ""we con- Op. at regulation whether the is reasonable and sider arbitrary. highly specialized agency Where Dep't 37. See Marathon Oil Co. v. Natural of involved, Res., (Alaska 2011) expertise we will not our is substitute (defining judgment Our role own for the board's. standard ... under which "reasonable basis give agency's interpretation only agency we deference to the a hard ensure has taken reasonable, long interpreta- so as it is when the problems."). look at the salient implicates agency expertise at or the tion issue text, pret during purpose, this liti AS 38.30.028 based on interpretation of the statute moment.38) interpretation so that the administrative gation is of no policy: statute enacts a reasonable Prisoners import of DOC's The court dismisses will be deterred from frivolous over-con- by invoking mutually con- interpretation two sumption of medical services-both in-house First, the court indicates tradietory reasons. system- and rendered outside the DOC reading" "plain" text and "natural while DOC will be able to recover costs when interpretation, preferred suffice to reach its prisoner has access to an enumerated lingering ambiguity implying that there is no coverage source of or benefits. statutory regulations for the in the text above, today, interprets the best read As the court AS 88.30.028 resolve. I discuss As clearly purpose significant the statute would inflict harms to ing of the statute's text and the State's interests and to the but, very my interpretation, at favors individual least, liberty ambiguous, and the court of former who have com- the statute is contrary interpretation. pleted DOC's their sentences. When a re- must addrеss Second, acknowledging without the contra ceivessubstantial medicalcare that is uncom- reason, sources, pensated by diction with the first the court states collateral DOC will be position superintending person's of assign on the "silen[t]" statute all, ability any money starting ment of for the cost of to save at person extending lacks while the is in outside medical care where collateral resources.39 The enumerated indefinitely prison- after release. If a former interpreta lucky enough reintegrate successfully that DOC's court then concludes er is "properly goes savings tion the statute no further" and obtain a modicum of to secure a life, "says nothing than the statute and of divest stable DOC will be able to seek reim- lacking years resources bursement under AS ing 38.80.0228 after Not effect, for outside services." power release. DOC will have the statutory prevent any argument is this as to silence con- former who received argument achieving tradieted the court's own about unreimbursed care from more than text, plain meaning subsistence existence until the unreim- why paid logic would an inter bursed cost of also contradicts itself: care is back. The pretive regulation power permit to divest а this claimed also would seem lability assigned by virtually any never the State to withhold form assistance, government including statute? Permanent salary payments, government Fund Dividend Finally, the court's disbursements, benefits, unemployment pay- damaging policy statute creates a that will contract, ments under and welfare public safety undermine the State's fiscal and payments. permit It would also seem to reducing support interest recidivism and *16 repayment forcing State to seek former ing prisoners' reentry successful into prisoners liquidate meager their assets community deciding after release. When against earnings borrow future from licenses law, questions interpreting of such as non-tangible or other assets unrealized meaning repeatedly of a we have gains. "(olur duty adopt stated that the rule of text, persuasive light prece I law that is most would conclude that the statute's dent, reason, policy."4 purpose, I would inter- and administrative Op. at il. prisoners How and when to bill for medical expenses in order to deter frivolous overuse clearly question subject medical a services is 40. 1d. agency expertise regu- DOC's as established in its lations. Ha, (Alaska n. 41. Guin v. 591 P.2d Georgetown Hosp., see, v. 1979); Revenue, See Bowen Univ. e.g., Dep't Heller v. 204, 213, U.S. 109 S.Ct. 102 L.Ed.2d (Alaska 2013). 72-73 (1988) ("Deference appears what to be noth- ing litigating agency's more than an convenient position entirely inappropriate."). would be text and this result. foreclose history legisla that the make clear ALSWORTH, Glen Sr. and Lorene they passing were a bill with thought tors Anelon, Petitioners, "Sue" charges prisoners only minimal copay a
would have the deterrent effect of services.42 ment for a subset medical SEYBERT, Holman, Victor John Kimber- policy The court's choice will harm the ly Williams, George Jacko, G. and Rick reducing re State's interests ex-offender Delkittie, Sr., Respondents. cidivism, safety, protecting public and safe No. S-14978. guarding public fise. Personal financial are a crucial determinant of sue resources Supreme Court of Alaska. reentry preventi cessful and recidivism Reducing protects public on.43 recidivism April crime, safety by preventing future and it also spending investigation, on
reduces State defense,
prosecution, punishment stem
ming of future crimes.44 from the commission
It was thus reasonable for the
adopt statutory text with the effect of limit
ing personal liability for outside healthcare
expenditures. The court's reconstruction policy,
AS 33.30.028 institutes a new one important goals. harms these State reasons, I
For these would hold that AS personal impose
83.30.028 does not ren- for the cost of health care by professionals
dered outside
system person where the lacks 83.30.028(a). I
source enumerated in AS
would reverse the court and re- respectfully
mand. I therefore dissent and join plurality opinion.
do not fully 20Reentry% 20Plan.pdf legislative history 42. The is discussed more Year% 20Prisoner% supra legisla- (identifying above. See notes 24-25. But the levels of ... vocational and "[How "criminogenic view limited tors' that this bill would have needs" financial achievement" as reiterating sponsor, reach here. The reincarceration); bears bill's leading id. at to recidivism ("[One contributing greatest factors to Mulder, described the statute Representative "adding ..."). Finance Committee House as indigence. recidivism was cha[r]ge as a small to inmates for importance of suc- The State understands way for Corrections to let inmates know that reentry role of cessful and the crucial drugs prescription there is a cost for and medical reentry Accordingly, policy. income in *17 Attorney "em- relief." Assistant General Stark leaving prison encourages persons all phasized provision is not intended as "reentry plans" steps create include imposed part punishment inmate" on an accumulating personal earning income and sav- legislation but rather "that will deter frivo- Reentry Corrections, ings. Araska Minutes, complaints." Judiciary lous H. (2012), 24-25, Manuat 32-33 available at http:// Hearing Leg., Sess. Comm. on H.B. 19th 1st www.correct.state.ak.us/IskForce/documents/ (Mar. 1995). 20pg% 20Entry% 2040.- Re% 20A11%20edited% Reentry pdf. generally 43. See Auaska Prisoner Task Reentry Force, Puran, Five-Year Prisoner StratEoic Prax, 2011-2016, (2011), supra generally note http://www. Auaska StratEcaic at 26 available at See 4-5, 43, at 21-22. correct.state.ak.us/TskForce/documents/Five-