Ex parte Alabama Department of Public Health. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Kathy K. Torbert v. Alabama Department of Public Health)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120941 Ex p a r t e Alabama Department o f P u b l i c Health PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Kathy K. T o r b e r t v. Alabama Department o f P u b l i c H e a l t h ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900020) THOMAS, J u d g e . On O c t o b e r 28, 2 0 1 1 , K a t h y K. T o r b e r t filed a petition f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 41-221 1 ( a ) , w i t h t h e Alabama Department o f P u b l i c H e a l t h ("ADPH"), s e e k i n g an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c e r t a i n o f ADPH's r u l e s governing 2120941 solid-waste collection Specifically, Torbert Ala. Admin. starting Code and activities or s t a t i o n ] and park E. " Ala. on issued measurement f o r the 500-foot area transfer garbage [in residence, a for j u d i c i a l 2011. Pursuant that to a facility any such § 41-22-20(d), Torbert remand t h e factual distances of filed matter or recreational Torbert's on J a n u a r y Torbert filed can ADPH factual opposed ADPH's 2012. a petition c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 6, be as to l o c a t i o n s of the determinations Torbert's 2 2012. circuit § 41-22-20(e) made that motion, and 6, l o c a t i o n s i n the immediate s u r r o u n d i n g other necessary." on Donald t o § 41-22-11(b) t o ADPH u n d e r f r o m v a r i o u s p o i n t s and and ruling a motion r e q u e s t i n g the determination the garbage-transfer (d), Torbert appealed review i n the c i r c u i t M a r c h 2012, court a school declaratory § 41-22-20(b) & r e q u i r e d by of and r u l i n g t o t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t In application 420-3-5-.12(2)(a)2., of of nearest December 5, Code 1975, As the facilities. ADPH, t h r o u g h t h e S t a t e H e a l t h O f f i c e r , Dr. Williamson, request on r e q u i r e s between "the storage the r. point rule transportation sought a r u l i n g (ADPH) ending b u f f e r zone the and the "so exact transfer area and [ A D P H ] deems arguing that 2120941 Torbert's request determinations declaratory that "fails the matter to recognize r u l i n g s and c o n t e s t e d a l s o argued t h a t Torbert's had zones applicable are rule, to which be a factual dispute. issues, argued declaratory The A would court entered r e m a n d i n g t h e m a t t e r t o ADPH. writ o f mandamus t o t h i s to remand ruling with the out, d i d not t o determine factual petition for a case. an o r d e r ADPH f i l e d on J u l y 1, 2013, i t s petition In i t s the c i r c u i t court, t h a t r e m a n d i n g a m a t t e r on an a p p e a l o f a d e c l a r a t o r y ruling to ADPH a r g u e s , t h e agency permitted on A u g u s t for a 8, 2013. petition, court ADPH from which t h e comply'" Torbert's r u l i n g i n t o a contested circuit proceedings." ADPH p o i n t e d turn between f o ra declaratory measured involve ADPH, case "'the points request, for factual [the] difference petition r e q u e s t e d t h a t ADPH d e c l a r e buffer be remanded as i t d i d b e f o r e f o r i t t o make f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s and t h a t such a remand ignores the d i s t i n c t i o n between p e t i t i o n s f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g s and c o n t e s t e d We deny t h e p e t i t i o n . "'"[M]andamus i s a d r a s t i c and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t h a t w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : (1) a clear legal right i n the 3 i snot cases. 2120941 p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do so; (3) the lack of another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; and (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e H o r t o n , 711 So. 2d 979, 983 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . ' " Ex parte Builders Insurer's (quoting 821 Fund, 980 So. 2d 1003, Ass'n 1006 parte (Ala. 2003), o v e r r u l e d on 23 So. 3d 635, 657 other of Ltd., Ala. Code 882 So. 2007) 2d 819, g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e DBI, (Ala. 2009)). A l t h o u g h the Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e AAPA"), Mississippi Self- ( A l a . C i v . App. A l l o y Wheels I n t ' l , Inc., Ex & Contractors 1975, § 41-22-1 Procedure Act et seq., ("the does not s p e c i f i c a l l y define a p e t i t i o n for a declaratory ruling, § 22-11(a) a d d r e s s e s p e t i t i o n s f o r d e c l a r a t o r y section r u l e may "an indicates that a g e n c y may a p e r s o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by issue a declaratory r u l i n g with respect r u l e or w i t h person, property enforceable is, That p e t i t i o n an a g e n c y f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g and v a l i d i t y of the any rulings. by however, i t defined 41- respect to the o r s t a t e o f f a c t s o f any to (Emphasis added.) A contested in the "[a] 4 and is the to statute " AAPA that applicability r u l e or a case proceeding, 2120941 i n c l u d i n g but not r e s t r i c t e d t o ratemaking, p r i c e f i x i n g , and l i c e n s i n g , i n which the l e g a l r i g h t s , d u t i e s , or p r i v i l e g e s o f a party a r e r e q u i r e d b y l a w t o be d e t e r m i n e d a f t e r an o p p o r t u n i t y 3(3) f o rhearing." (emphasis added). each form o f r e l i e f , be made w i t h o u t decided A l a . Code 1975, § 41-22- B a s e d on t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d t o d e s c r i b e c o n t e n d s ADPH, a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g may a hearing, while a contested case must be after a hearing. According contested-case prevent b y an a g e n c y to ADPH, process the c i r c u i t the distinctions between and t h e d e c l a r a t o r y - r u l i n g court from h a v i n g from a d e c l a r a t o r y However, § clearly "rulings are subject states t o review Montgomery C o u n t y , u n l e s s that Court of s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d by the s t a t u t e , i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d i n Section the review cases." of decisions i n contested ruling. declaratory i n the C i r c u i t otherwise process t h e power t o remand a m a t t e r t o an a g e n c y on an a p p e a l 41-22-11(b) the 41-22-20 f o r Nothing i n the t e x t o f § 41-22-11(b) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f § 41¬ 22-20 i s t o be a l t e r e d i n a n y way when an a p p e a l d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g as o p p o s e d t o a c o n t e s t e d case. involves a Thus, t h e p l a i n language o f § 41-22-11(b) r e q u i r e s and p e r m i t s a c i r c u i t 5 2120941 court considering an a p p e a l from a declaratory ruling to f o l l o w t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t o u t i n § 41-22-20. However, ADPH c o n t e n d s t h a t § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( e ) , t h e p r o v i s i o n upon which Torbert based her motion m a t t e r t o ADPH, s h o u l d n o t a p p l y rulings. seeking t o appeals remand of the from d e c l a r a t o r y S e c t i o n 41-22-20(e) s t a t e s : " I f t h e r e h a s b e e n no h e a r i n g p r i o r t o a g e n c y a c t i o n and t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e a c t i o n depends upon d i s p u t e d f a c t s , t h e c o u r t shall order t h e agency t o conduct a prompt f a c t - f i n d i n g proceeding under t h i s chapter after having a reasonable opportunity t o reconsider i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . " ADPH a r g u e s t h a t , when one c o n s i d e r s t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e AAPA in p a r i materia with § 41-22-20(e), see Blackmon v. B r a z i l , 895 So. 2d 900, 907 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 801 So. 2d 7, 10 quoting (Ala. 2001), i n turn Berryhill, K i r k l a n d v. S t a t e , 529 So. 2d 1036, 1038 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988)) ascertaining legislative ("'"When i n t e n t , s t a t u t e s which are i n p a r i materia ... must be i n t e r p r e t e d as a w h o l e i n l i g h t general purpose legislature of the s t a t u t e . " ' " ) , i t i s c l e a r that the c o u l d n o t have i n t e n d e d t o remand a m a t t e r on an a p p e a l hearing to of the resolve factual to allow a c i r c u i t court of a declaratory ruling for a issues 6 when, ADPH says, the 2120941 procedure f o r i s s u i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g does n o t r e q u i r e a fact-finding hearing. Allowing the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o remand t h e m a t t e r f o r a f a c t - f i n d i n g h e a r i n g , s a y s ADPH, w i l l Torbert's request for a declaratory ruling into case w i t h o u t h e r h a v i n g f o l l o w e d t h e procedures contested case. 1 which a contested to initiate a I n s t e a d , p o s i t s ADPH, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e have i n t e n d e d t o have t h e c i r c u i t 20(k), convert must c o u r t a p p l y o n l y § 41-22- sets out the standard of review o f an a g e n c y As we p o i n t e d o u t i n A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d v . B r a s h e a r s , 575 So. 2d 1149, 1151 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , w h i c h i n v o l v e d the appeal of the d i s m i s s a l of a p e t i t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g , § 41-21-20(k) a l s o p e r m i t s a c i r c u i t c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g an a p p e a l f r o m a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g o r c o n t e s t e d c a s e t o remand t h e m a t t e r t o t h e a g e n c y f o r t h e t a k i n g o f additional evidence or f o r other proceedings. In i t s e n t i r e t y , § 41-22-20 r e a d s : 1 " ( k ) E x c e p t where j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s b y t r i a l de novo, t h e a g e n c y o r d e r s h a l l be t a k e n as p r i m a f a c i e just and r e a s o n a b l e and t h e c o u r t s h a l l not s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y as t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , e x c e p t where o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u t e . The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n o r remand t h e case t o t h e agency f o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e o r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . The c o u r t may r e v e r s e o r m o d i f y t h e d e c i s i o n o r g r a n t o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f from t h e agency a c t i o n , e q u i t a b l e or l e g a l , i n c l u d i n g d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f , i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n i s due t o be s e t a s i d e or m o d i f i e d under standards s e t f o r t h i n appeal o r r e v i e w s t a t u t e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h a t agency o r i f s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n i s any one o r 7 2120941 action, t o i t s review of declaratory r u l i n g s . We c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h ADPH. This court has made clear declaratory r u l i n g i s not considered the [A]APA." Home H e a l t h Alabama A s s ' n that petition a 'contested o f Home H e a l t h & Hospice o f Alabama, I n c . , ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992). "a for case' under Agencies v . ABC 601 So. 2d 1027, 1030 We a g r e e w i t h ADPH t h a t t h e s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s o f t h e AAPA must be c o n s t r u e d cannot conclude t h a t c o n s t r u i n g i n p a r i materia, § 41-22-11 a n d § 41-22-20 i n more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : "(1) I n v i o l a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r statutory provisions; "(2) In excess of a u t h o r i t y o f t h e agency; "(3) In v i o l a t i o n agency r u l e ; the statutory o f any pertinent "(4) Made upon u n l a w f u l "(5) Affected by other procedure; error o f law; "(6) C l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n v i e w o f t h e reliable, probative, and substantial e v i d e n c e on t h e w h o l e r e c o r d ; o r "(7) Unreasonable, a r b i t r a r y , or c a p r i c i o u s , o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y an abuse o f discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise ofdiscretion." 8 b u t we 2120941 pari materia results i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t ADPH That i s , the r e c o g n i t i o n of a d i s t i n c t i o n between desires. t h e two a v e n u e s o f r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e t o a p a r t y who w i s h e s t o c h a l l e n g e an agency's action under a particular rule does n o t equate with a determination that the appeal process f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y ruling, which i s specifically s e t o u t i n § 41-22-11 (b) b e i n g t h e same as t h e p r o c e s s f o r the appeal of a contested c a s e u n d e r § 41-22-20, must a l s o Although we understand as the ADPH's a r g u m e n t , t h e c l e a r l a n g u a g e differ. logical underpinnings o f § 42-22-11(b) c a n n o t be t r u m p e d b y an a p p e a l t o r e a s o n . " I t i s t h i s Court's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to give e f f e c t to the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t whenever t h a t i n t e n t i s m a n i f e s t e d . S t a t e v . U n i o n Tank C a r Co., 281 A l a . 246, 248, 201 So. 2d 402, 403 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . When i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e , t h i s C o u r t must r e a d t h e statute as a w h o l e b e c a u s e statutory language depends on c o n t e x t ; we w i l l presume t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e knew t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d s i t u s e d when i t e n a c t e d t h e s t a t u t e . Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 614 So. 2d 405, 406-07 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , when a t e r m i s n o t d e f i n e d i n a s t a t u t e , t h e commonly a c c e p t e d d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e t e r m s h o u l d be a p p l i e d . R e p u b l i c S t e e l C o r p . v. H o r n , 268 A l a . 279, 2 8 1 , 105 So. 2d 446, 447 ( 1 9 5 8 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , we must g i v e t h e words i n a s t a t u t e t h e i r p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly understood meaning, a n d where plain language i s u s e d we must i n t e r p r e t i t t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . Ex p a r t e S h e l b y C o u n t y H e a l t h C a r e A u t h . , 850 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . " 9 of 2120941 Bean D r e d g i n g , L.L.C. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue, 855 So. 2d 513, 517 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Section 41-22-11(b) s t a t e s t h a t a d e c l a r a t o r y t o be r e v i e w e d " i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d the review of decisions 20(e) permits contested the a i n contested circuit court case o r d e c l a r a t o r y agency that i s required t o judge action. Thus, on statutes, compliance with ADPH raise court. court argues that the v a l i d i t y of factual o f an agency used i n the remand o r d e r was i n language court's the existence failed Torbert of a factual B a s e d on t h i s was c o n f i n e d Torbert to raise her ADPH i n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y Thus, ADPH c o n t e n d s , was n o t p e r m i t t e d issue before by § 41-22-20(j) contested case 10 or a the c i r c u i t to considering appeal. court's to the c i r c u i t p r e m i s e , ADPH a r g u e s t h a t § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( j ) does s t a t e t h a t a c i r c u i t a of a § 41-22-20. further from 41-22- the appeal administrative record i n deciding Torbert's appeal Section resolution the p l a i n the c i r c u i t f a c t u a l dispute before ruling. cases." r u l i n g t o remand t h e m a t t e r t o questions relevant i n S e c t i o n 41-22-20 f o r reviewing i f i t determines based ruling i s only the Although r e v i e w o f an declaratory ruling i s 2120941 " c o n f i n e d t o t h e r e c o r d , " t h a t phrase i s l i m i t e d by t h e caveat " e x c e p t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d . " circuit 20(e), court which Torbert's that t o remand we appeal the matter determined o f t h e power o f t h e t o ADPH u n d e r § 41-22- was p r o p e r l y exercised i n f r o m t h e d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g , we c a n n o t a g r e e the c i r c u i t administrative have In l i g h t 2 court was l i m i t e d to considering only the record. B a s e d on t h e l a n g u a g e o f § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) , T o r b e r t ' s was g o v e r n e d b y § 41-22-20. The c i r c u i t court's t h i s m a t t e r was p e r m i t t e d u n d e r § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( e ) . established a clear, legal right appeal remand o f ADPH h a s n o t t o the r e l i e f i t seeks. A c c o r d i n g l y , we deny ADPH's p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Section 41-22-20(j) begins: "The r e v i e w shall be c o n d u c t e d b y t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y a n d , e x c e p t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , s h a l l i n t h e r e v i e w o f c o n t e s t e d c a s e s be c o n f i n e d to the record " 2 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.