{ "id": 2834805, "name": "Manuel GRIEGO, Petitioner, v. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF the STATE of New Mexico, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Griego v. Health & Social Services Department", "decision_date": "1975-04-30", "docket_number": "No. 1437", "first_page": "462", "last_page": "466", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 N.M. 462" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "535 P.2d 1088" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "62 N.M. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2714314 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/62/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 N.M. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568244 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/43/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2774442 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 734", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2770184 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5340350 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 U.S. 106", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3924762 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1933, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" }, { "page": "7" }, { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/290/0106-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 640, "char_count": 12981, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2954407608217056e-07, "percentile": 0.6209194049537251 }, "sha256": "ce00ed92251a458c65405c3683f67f5a7b01074dd1fb3028fce440da1db59892", "simhash": "1:b2acbeebbd9dbdc2", "word_count": 2055 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY, J., concurs.", "SUTIN, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Manuel GRIEGO, Petitioner, v. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF the STATE of New Mexico, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nLOPEZ, Judge.\nGriego appeals from a decision of the Health and Social Services Department (HSSD) which denied his application for AFDC benefits because his available income was $539.95 per month and the standard of need fixed by the Department was $298.00 per month.\nThe above amounts are undisputed. The question on appeal is whether medical expenses incurred by Griego\u2019s deceased son should be included in the computation to reduce the \u201cincome\u201d figure so as to bring the petitioner within the standard of need. These medical expenses amount to over $45,000.00.\nGriego relies on Baca v. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department, 83 N.M. 703, 496 P.2d 1099 (Ct.App.1972); Chavez v. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department, 84 N.M. 734, 507 P.2d 795 (Ct.App.1973) and \u00a7 13-17-3(B), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, Supp.1973), which provides in part:\n\u201cB. Consistent with the federal act, the board shall define by regulation exempt and nonexempt income and resources. Medical expenses shall not be exchided from nonexempt income or from nonexempt resources[Emphasis added]\nIt is the nonexempt income which is compared to the standard of need. Section 13-17-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, Supp.1973). Griego argues that the emphasized portion of \u00a7 13-17-3(B), supra, authorizes the inclusion of his medical bills in the calculation of his nonexempt income. In other words, he asks that the medical expenses be deducted from his available income. The amount of his nonexempt income would then be zero. Consequently, he would be eligible for public assistance. We cannot agree with his reasoning.\nThe central inquiry on this appeal is the meaning of the emphasized portion of \u00a7 13-17-3 (B), supra. As that sentence admits of no clear interpretation upon an initial reading, it is necessary to go outside the section to determine what the legislature intended. An examination of the repealed Public Welfare Act, \u00a7\u00a7 13-1-1 through 13-1-57, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol.\n3, Supp. 1973), the cases decided thereunder and the changes in the statutory scheme made by the Laws of 1973 is helpful.\nUnder the repealed law, public assistance was granted to any needy person who \u201chas not sufficient income or other resources to provide a reasonable [level of] subsistence compatible with decency and health.\u201d [Emphasis added] Section 13-1-11, supra. The Department, by regulation, established a standard of need. If a person\u2019s income was below this standard, he was granted public assistance. Baca v. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department, supra. In the Baca case, the Department determined Baca\u2019s standard of need to be $116.00 per month. This was exclusive of medical expenses. It was undisputed that Baca had a heart condition, requiring the use of a pace maker, without which he would die. His cost was $5.60 for insurance plus 20% of any excess was covered by insurance. Baca\u2019s income from social security being $116.40 and his standard of need being $116.00, he was denied public assistance. He appealed and this court reversed holding that his medical expenses must be subtracted from his income when comparing income to standard of need for eligibility purposes.\nSimilarly, in Chavez v. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department, supra, the Department determined Chavez\u2019 standard of need and income without regard to her medical expenses. She, like Baca, had medical problems requiring medication without which she would likely die. This court again held that the cost of medication had to be subtracted from income before determining eligibility for public assistance. The Supreme Court granted the Department\u2019s petition for certiorari, but before the case was decided, the legislature amended the public welfare laws rendering the case moot. Still, the Supreme Court, by way of dictum, disapproved of our holding in the case in that we had created a new unfunded category for assistance. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department v. Chavez, 85 N.M. 447, 513 P.2d 184 (1973).\nBefore the Supreme Court acted, the legislature did two things which we deem significant. First, it deleted the word, \u201ccompatible with decency and health,\u201d from the cognate provision to \u00a7 13-1-11, supra. Section 13-17-3(A), supra. Second, it enacted the Special Medical Needs Act, \u00a7\u00a7 13-15-1 through 13-15-5, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, Supp.1973). This Act specifically covers the Baca and Chavez situations by establishing a program to provide medical care for certain persons not otherwise eligible for public assistance who have serious medical conditions. Section 13-15-3, supra. New Mexico Health and Social Services Department v. Chavez, supra. The parties agree that this Act is inapplicable to Griego\u2019s expenses due to the fact that his deceased son was under eighteen years of age. Section 13-15-2(D), supra.\nWhile we recognize that the words used in the Special Medical Needs Act, supra, to indicate that medical expenses are to be subtracted from income are the very same words Griego relies on in this case (compare \u00a7 13-15-4(B), supra, with \u00a7 13-17-3(B), supra), it would be absurd to presume that the legislature enacted the Special Medical Needs Act, supra, to cover situations that would also be covered by the Public Assistance Act, supra. The courts will not indulge in such absurd presumptions. See McDonald v. Lambert, 43 N.M. 27, 85 P.2d 78 (1938). Further, sustaining Griego\u2019s position would make the Special Medical Needs Act, supra, useless and we will not impute to the legislature an intention to enact a useless statute. Alvarez v. Board of Trustee of La Union Townsite, 62 N.M. 319, 309 P.2d 989 (1957).\nAccordingly, we hold that the amount of medical expenses incurred by Griego\u2019s son were properly excluded from the Department\u2019s computation of nonexempt income resources. The decision of HSSD denying eligibility is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY, J., concurs.\nSUTIN, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "LOPEZ, Judge." }, { "text": "SUTIN, Judge\n(dissenting).\nI dissent.\nGriego, confronted with a hospital bill of $45,936.92, and medical bills of $301.09 and $3,284.44, all arising from a motorcycle accident of his 17-year-old son who subsequently died, seeks public assistance.\nGriego is eligible for public assistance grants if, \u201cConsistent with the [Federal Social Security Act] * * * A. * * * the total amount of his nonexempt income is less than the applicable standard of need; and B. nonexempt specific and total resources are less than the level of maximum permissible resources established by the board; * * [Emphasis added]. Section 13-17-4(A), (B), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, 1973 Supp.).\nHSSD contends that medical expenses should not be considered in determining eligibility. It has not carefully considered \u00a7 13-17-3 of the Public Assistance Act.\nSection 13-17-3 provides guidelines for establishing the standard of need and for income determination.\nA. Consistent with the federal act and subject to the availability of federal and state funds, the [health and social services] board shall adopt a standard of need which shall establish a reasonable level of subsistence.\nB. Consistent with the federal act, the board shall define by regulation exempt and nonexempt income and resources. Medical expenses shall not be excluded from nonexempt income or from nonexempt resources. [Emphasis added].\n,, What is meant by \u201cnonexempt income\u201d and \u201cnonexempt resources\u201d ? These phrases are important in determining eligibility and income determination.\nThe board has not defined these phrases as it has been directed to do by statute. By not defining these phrases, in effect, it arbitrarily and capriciously denies Griego relief.\nThe parties argued the meaning of the following excerpt from part B of \u00a7 13-17-3 :\nB. * * * Medical expenses shall not be excluded from nonexempt income or from nonexempt resources.\nThis excerpted portion of the statute is thoroughly confusing not only because of the double negatives, but also because expenses and income do not appear on the same side of the ledger.\n\u201cNon\u201d means \u201cabsence of\u201d. \u201cExempt\u201d means \u201cexcepted from the operation of some law or obligation: not subject to: not liable to \u2014 * * * (tax-exempt)\u201d. Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1966), at 795, 1535.\nTherefore, \u201cnonexempt income\u201d is income (1) that is characterized by the absence of an exception to the law; or (2) that is subject to the law.\nHSSD defined \u201cincome\u201d according to its Regulation 221.832(C), which reads:\n\u201cIncome\u201d includes money received from earnings, income from income producing real or personal property resources, pensions and similar financial benefit plans, support obligations and regular contributions.\nAccordingly, \u201cnonexempt income\u201d refers to those items set forth in the regulation which are subject to the provisions of the Public Assistance Act [\u00a7 13-17-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, 1973 Supp.)]. For the purpose of determining eligibility for public assistance, \u201cnonexempt income\u201d would refer to those items which are totaled into a figure that is compared with the applicable standard of need. Section 13-17-4(A).\nSimilarly, the phrase, \u201cnonexempt resources\u201d, in \u00a7 13-17-3, refers to resources that are subject to the provisions of the Public Assistance Act.\nSynonyms for \u201cexcluded\u201d are \u201cleft out\u201d and \u201cnot included\u201d. 1 Roget\u2019s International Thesaurus, at 36. The phrase \u201cshall not be excluded from\u201d in \u00a7 13-17-3 (B) means, \u201cshall be included in\u201d or \u201cshall not be left out of\u201d.\nThese definitions can be put together into a paraphrase of the above-quoted sentence from \u00a7 13-17-3(B), in order to decipher its meaning when applied to \u00a7 13-17-4(A). Paraphrasing \u00a7 13-17-3(B) as applied to \u00a7 13-17-4(A), we get the following :\nMedical expenses shall be included in those income or resource items which are totaled into a figure that is compared with the applicable standard of need.\nAuthors of legislative enactments and legislators ought to remind themselves repeatedly of the importance of clarity. They might keep in front of them a copy of a Scottish law that has been called the world\u2019s \u201cmost inexplicable statute\u201d:\nIn the Nuts (unground), (other than ground nuts) Order, the expression nuts shall have reference to such nuts, other than ground nuts, as would but for this amending Order not qualify as nuts (unground) (other than ground nuts) by reason of their being nuts (unground). N. McWhirter and R. McWhirter, Guiness Book of World Records (1974), at 385.\nJustice Benjamin Cardozo once confided to a friend, \u201cI do love words, more, probably, than a wise man should.\u201d In Cooper v. Dasher, 290 U.S. 106, 109, 54 S.Ct. 6, 7, 78 L.Ed. 203, 204 (1933). Mr. Justice Cardozo said:\nWords after all are symbols, and the significance of the symbols varies with the knowledge and experience of the mind receiving them.\nPerhaps the authors of the Public Assistance Act and the legislators understood the symbols in the \u201cmedical expenses\u201d sentence when they enacted it into law. But I am convinced that they did not.\nThe intent of the disputed sentence was to benefit eligible persons in need of aid or relief. That is what \u201cpublic assistance\u201d means. Section 13-17-2.\nOne of the reasons is that \u00a7 13-17-12(A) provides that \u201c * * * the department shall provide necessary hospital care for recipients of public assistance * *\nMedical expenses should be considered in determining whether Mr. Griego is eligible for public assistance. Section 13-17-9 provides for \u201cAid to families with dependent children.\u201d Medical expenses of children fall within the area of \u201caid to families\u201d.\nSubsections (A) and (B) of \u00a7 13-17-3 must be interpreted in a consistent fashion. In order to \u201cestablish a reasonable level of subsistence\u201d, as required by Subsection (A), medical expenses must be deducted when determining net nonexempt income (Subsection (B)), in order to determine eligibility. This is the only consistent interpretation of Subsections (A) and (B).\nGriego\u2019s medical expenses far exceed the benefits he receives from the federal government. This fact establishes that Griego is eligible to receive public assistance under the 1973 Public Assistance Act.\nSection 13-17-3(B) directs the Health and Social Services Board to \u201cdefine by regulation exempt and nonexempt income and resources\u2019\u2019 [Emphasis added]. The Board 'has not done so. I have given in this opinion definitions of the key words in the italicized expression which lead to a conclusion that Griego is eligible for assistance. Until the Board complies with the statute and provides definitions which lead to a contrary conclusion, there is no basis for denying Griego assistance.", "type": "dissent", "author": "SUTIN, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Dennis M. McCary, Johnson, Paulantis & Lanphere, Albuquerque, for petitioner.", "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James G. Huber, Agency Asst. Atty. Gen., Health and Social Services Dept., Santa Fe, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "535 P.2d 1088\nManuel GRIEGO, Petitioner, v. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF the STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.\nNo. 1437.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 30, 1975.\nDennis M. McCary, Johnson, Paulantis & Lanphere, Albuquerque, for petitioner.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James G. Huber, Agency Asst. Atty. Gen., Health and Social Services Dept., Santa Fe, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0462-01", "first_page_order": 488, "last_page_order": 492 }