*1 Emmеtt, County Prosecuting Atty., Gem Ronald defendants-respondents. H. for SAXTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Debra argued. Bjorkman, Falls, Bush, Anderson, Idaho for Pike & COUNTY; Dorothy Hartgrove, GEM Catastrophic Health Care amicus curiae Conrad, Norwood, and William W.M. Idaho Counties. Program of the Costs capacities as the Board of their official Hall, argued. Blake G. County, of Gem Commissioners Defendants-Respondents. BAKES, Justice.
No. 16636. Saxton, appeals appellant, Debra of Idaho. Supreme Court held that Gem court decision which district Feb. 1988. statutorily required County is not pay indigency statutes to Idaho’s medically incurred physicians’ bills emergen indigent patient in the context hospitalization. The facts show psy suffering an acute Debra Saxton Al episode and was admitted St. chotic Medical phonsus Regional Center emergency ward. After her release county as application filed an for Saxton January with Gem on sistance (1) application requested: pay 1985. The bill incurred for ment for hospital Alphonsus at St. for treatment 31, 1984, January ization from December (2) $4,266.89, 14,1985, in the amount of resulting physician’s bill payment of her hospitalization in the amount from the employ not an $955.00. privi Alphonsus, but has staff ee of St. attending physician leges and was Saxton’s during hospitalization. her Gem request application, denied the and Saxton heаring. represented herself ed a Saxton hearing held March 1985. pro se in a written decision County issued a Gem rea- denying appellant assistance for three (1) received “emer- appellant sons: had not Caldwell, Services, Inc., Legal Aid care; (2) for application gency” Saxton’s Thomas, plaintiff-appellant. Andrew C. Security might be a re- benefits Social argued. bills; (3) available to source obligated county County was not the Blanton, Gem Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & had not resided Gem because Saxton Boise, Region- for amicus curiae St. Luke’s prior applica- to her County for six months Alphonsus al Medical and St. Re- Center tion. gional Phillip Medical Center. S. Ober-
recht, argued. counsel, With the assistance of Saxton Crockett, French, rehearing April
Hopkins, Springer request & filed a Falls, Hoopes, rehearing was denied on request for amicus curiae The 1, 1985, University May aрpeal was taken to Utah School of Medicine. Goins, Larry argued. Idaho Admin- pursuant L. district court *2 930 Thus, only A to
istrative Procedures Act. motion
sub-
the
fee
physician’s
issue is be-
evidence, pursuant
mit additional
to I.C.
fore this Court. For the reasons enumerat-
67-5215(e),
9, 1985,
July
was filed on
below,
ed
we reverse the
district court
granted
the motion was
and the matter
indigency
hold that Idaho’s medical
stat-
county
to the
remanded
commission.
require
pay
utes
County
Gem
to
the doc-
tor’s bill.
hearing
A second
was held before Gem
30,
County on
At
December
1985.
that
appellant
The
claims that the doctor bills
eight
testimony
time
from Saxton and
ex-
chargeable
are
upon
to Gem
based
hibits were offered on her behalf. On Jan-
the
indigency
Idaho medical
locat
14, 1986,
uary
application
Saxton’s
was
chapters
ed at
34 and 35 of Title 31 of the
again
However,
once
denied.
this time
In these
legisla
Cоde.
sections the
only one
given
reason was
for the denial.
ambiguously
ture has somewhat
codified
Gem
found that Saxton’s medical
county’s duty
medically
the
to care
for
response
was
“emergency
not in
to an
indigent
reading
citizens. A careful
the
life-threatening”
situation.
directly
fails
physi
statutes
to
answer the
29, 1986,
January
On
the district court
Thus,
question.
cians’
we
fees
must re
briefs, along
production
ordered
with the
question by determining
solve this
what
transcripts
the
and exhibits. After consid
legislature
promulgated
intended as it
record,
ering
briefs and the
district
modified the statutes.
order to
court issued a memorandum decision order
intent,
resolve the
we must
ing
respondents
pay
to
hospi
Saxton’s
review
the historical
of Ida
Alphonsus.
tal bill at St.
The district
indigency
ho’s
statutes.
As
(1)
(of
court:
held “the affidavit
physi
stated, “Upon
once
this
point
Holmes
cian) and medical
records
this case make
page
history
logic.”
is worth a volume of
appellant’s
abundantly
sympto
it
clear that
Eisner,
New
Trust Co. v.
256 U.S.
York
emergency
matic behavior
constituted
506,
41
65
963
S.Ct. at
L.Ed.
attention”;
(2)
required
immediate
(1921).
rejected respondents’ argument
original
indigency
The
medical
scheme
state’s
medical
statutes do not
enacted
envisioned coun
illness,
provide for treatment of mental
but
providing
ties
of their indi
for
needs
apply
physical
injury;
to
illness or
gеnt
(3)
medically
citizens
rejected
claim
that Gem
was
poor
means
bill,
farms
houses and coun
legally obligated
physician’s
to
ty
finding
hospitals.
physicians
The counties hired
authority
payment
pri
“no
physicians
who
indigen
vate
under the
attended to the medical necessities
payment only
people.
statutory
statutes which authorize
these
The
lan
hospitals.” Appellant
petition
filed
guage
early days
required
of those
rеhearing on
of the physician’s
the issue
county employ
pur
for these
granted.
fees and
petition
was
After
poses.
Section
Rev.Stat. 1887.
reviewing
parties,
briefs submitted
changed,
times and conditions
the counties
the district court issued a second memoran
many
and in
discontinued the
farms
dum decision which
court’s
reaffirmed the
began
rely
private hospi
instances
prior holding.
county-operated hospitals.
tals rather than
pri
cоunty physician
replaced by
The
appealed
Saxton has
the district court
pri
physicians working
vate
these
ruling
obligated
are
Idaho counties
con
hospitals.
changing
vate
meet the
pay physicians’
bills incurred in
legislature changed the
ditions
emergency hospitalization
text of
for a
language of
Section
Rev.Stat.
county
applicant
assistance
who medical-
employ
required
which had
ly indigent.
respondents
ap-
day
present
per
pealed
finding
physician,
district court
language
bill. missive
31-3402.1
liable
Saxton’s
attend,
may employ
physician to
Employment
physician.
when
"31-3402.
board
—The
application for relief must
emergency,
mandatory language of the
changes from
county. When relief
first be made to the
permissive language of
prior
statute
order,
form of an
granted,
it is
respon
is at the crux of the
today’s statute
simply
county,
thе order is
services are
argument that doctors’
dents’
*3
promotion
in
our
playing
part
of
not covered.
welfare,
of the mon-
takes some
common
argue
Respondents
specifically
through taxa-
it has collected
ey which
legislature
the counties’
when the
removed
tion,
purchases
for the unfortunate
employ county physi-
mandatory duty to
indigent that which he must have and
cian the
indicated its intent
himself, i.e., gro-
purchаse
unable to
medi-
doctor bills were not covered
ceries, fuel,
hospital
servic-
However,
his-
indigency
cal
statutes.
es,
I
men-
and in the other field
have
torical
of medical
tioned,
services,
legal
where he has been
support
law in Idaho does not
this conclu-
appli-
named
an accused. It is a clear
sion.
parens patriae,
the doctrine of
cation of
Hospital
Idaho Falls Consolidated
сontemplation
of
clearly
within
Bingham County
Board
of
as well as most
Constitution
Comm’rs,
102 Idaho
societies.” 102 Idaho at
civilized
Bistline,
(1982),
special
in a
concur
(emphasis
always to the sick or be available J., Tern, SMITH, Pro concurs. *5 option or the other as indigent, under one 31-3402, attending provided by I.C. § (or import, surgeon). Of like requires there be an attend-
§ call is re-
ing physician judgmental whose
quired county patient for a to be order county hospital.
dismissed from 31-3402, as modified from Code § DEVELOPMENT COMPA- FAIRWAY time, by time to antedates Idaho statehood NY, Plaintiff-Appellant, years. greater age seven Of is I.C. 31-3401, 1864, and, which dates back to language found in similar to that Leslie, COUNTY, Idaho; Lyle BANNOCK presently provides that Assessor; County Cro- Vivian Bannock can out the commissioners contract Treasurer; zier, County Tom Bannock care, protection, and maintenance of Katsilometes, Carolyn Meline sick, medically indigent, or otherwise indi- Shiozawa, George gent county. Commissioners, Defendants-Respon- that, entirely It seems clear as Justice dents. detailed, Bakes has there nevеr was a time No. 16734. Idaho, territory and since 1864 when as a state, Supreme Court of Idaho. then as a did not look out for the disadvantaged, impov- welfare its Feb. erished, and its sick. long ago took note as 1935 this Court having
of the Idaho imposed that the law so wrote
done duty to care for county. sick and It pay-
added that taxes be levied for imposed obligations.
ment of such It add- under the law it could fulfill its
ed also that contract,” going
duty “directly byor on to building operating hospi-
explain that “optional discretionary”
tal was county. county, option Another
Peterson, Moss, Olsen, Carr, Meacham & Falls, plaintiff-appellant. Ste- Hall, phen argued. D. Storm, Erich N. Deputy Atty., Pros. Po- catello, for defendants-respondents. HUNTLEY, Justice.
Fairway Development Company appeals grant summary trial court’s judg- ment to Bannock County, the Bannock County Commissioners, Assessor and Trea- (hereinafter “Bannock”), surer after cross- summary motions for judgment were filed parties. both Fairway had filed com- plaint for review decisions the Board Appeals Tax the Bannock Commissioners, sitting as a Board of Equalization, upheld the Bannock Assessor’s tax evaluation plaintiff’s property. real 1977, Fairway Development
Since Com- pany operated has fifty-six owned and apartment complex unit known as “Fair- *6 Pocatello, way Estates” in In Idaho. Octo- 1978, ber Fairway filed a Declaration of Fairway Condominium for and Estates has attempted since to sell the units as condo- miniums, continuing while rent un- apartments. sold units as After the decla- ration, Fairway improved common ar- Fairway among eas of by, Estates other things, adding pool carports. date, fifty-six nine of the units have been sold as condominiums. Condominium,
Since the Declaration of appraised Bannock has unit in each Fairway condominium, using Estates as (which the market data looks method open units). current market sales of similar result, appraised As a value increased $8,749 approximately per unit to be $28,700 $30,350 unit; per tween average increase of 337%. Since Fairway property has tax on Fair way contending protest, Estates under County’s Bannock assessment unconstitu tionally and in 63-2021 violation of I.C. § provides: 1. Idaho Code ap- § 63-202 county according recognized within his praisal regulations pertaining techniques Rules and forth as set market val- methods commission; duty provided, the ac- reg- assessors. —... rules and [t]he state ue— major promulgated by ulations sion shall value for consider- the state tax shall be commis- use tual and functional require determining value for assess- each assessor market to find market when ation ment purposes property purposes____ assessment all tax, collected shall be levied and use” of and functional ignores the “actual laws, prescribe general which shall each Fairway the units. contends just regulations as shall secure overpayment to the overas year its due $14,000 property, per unit. for taxation of all approximately valuation sessment is leg- provided, that the personal: real and received September this Court exemptions from may allow such islature argument in this case briefs and heard oral time as shall seem from time to taxation trial 12 certification of the under I.A.R. existing ex- and all necessary just, par- Fairway’s court’s denial of motion by the laws of the emptions provided appeal judgment. summary tial changed by until territory, shall continue pro- further remanded dismissed provided fur- legislaturе of the state: P.2d ceedings, ther, duplicate taxation granted remand, court the trial Since during the same purpose the same County. to Bannock summary judgment year, prohibited. required to deter- By appeal, this we are re- provisions Simply put, the constitutional mine whether the valuation scheme used proportional quire that taxation must County, valuing Fairway Estates among the “same class” uniform condominiums, entirely comprisеd of ei- Idaho’s Condominium those to taxed. unconstitutionally violates ID. ther Act, seq., et Property CONST, VII, guaran- art and which §§ establishing unequivocal expressions tains taxation, proportional tee uniform and as a distinct the estate of “condominium” controverts the mandate of I.C. § classification. properties be as- which mandates Purpose poli- 55-1502. I.C. § —Public sessed in accordance with their “actual and cy. Whereas, avаilability of more — use.” We that the classifi- functional hold construction, adequate financing for land Fairway cation of Estates as condominiums improvement, development and and busi- proper and nonviolative of our constitu- expansion advanta- ness is beneficial and issue, tion and affirm on that but remand geous appropri- for a determination of whether an interest, and, Idaho and in the method, employs ate assessment one whereas, the condominium estate is a *7 analysis giving “major consideration” to concept holding property, which con- use,” property’s “actual and functional cept should be clarified in the state of was used. permit Idaho to and facilitate con- struction and of condomin- I. projects, together iums and condominium Fairway’s first contention is that same; financing CONST, VII, guaran 2 and art ID. §§ Now, therefore, the condominium es- taxation, teeing proportional uniform and property hereby tate in declared been violated. Those constitutional property be a estate in provisions provide: lawful public policy sistent with the of the state provided by 2. Revenue to be taxa- added). of Idaho. provide such tion.—The shall needful, by levying revenue as filing Fairway’s of a Declaration of Con- valuation, every person so that triggеred Fairway dominium for Estates corporation proportion shall a tax in the new classification of its —a his, her, property, to the value of or its adjust- discrete classification which renders except as in other- this article hereinafter ed assessment on the basis of the altered provided____ wise constitutionally classification valid. Exemp- 5. Taxes to be uniform — II. taxes shall be uniform tions.—All subjects Fairway’s same class of second within More troubling limits, contention, namely, County’s authority levying territorial purposes____ (Emphasis value for assessment