Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc. appealed a New Hampshire Waste Management Council (Council) decision upholding a determination by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) to grant a permit to intervenor Pioneer Point Enterprises, LLC (Pioneer), to build and operate a solid waste facility adjacent to the petitioner's property. In May 2008, Pioneer applied for a permit to operate a solid waste management facility in an existing structure near the Souhegan River in Greenville. The Souhegan River was a "designated river" under the New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Act (RMPA), and under the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). DES denied the permit, concluding that the proposed facility violated the 250-foot setback requirement for solid waste facilities specified in the RMPA. Approximately six months later, Pioneer submitted an amended application, accompanied by a request for a waiver to build a new access driveway within fifty feet of the petitioner’s property. After the hearing, the Council ruled that the petitioner failed to prove that the issuance of the permit and waiver was either unreasonable or unlawful under the circumstances of this case. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Council erred when it: (1) concluded that only Unit 2 constituted the facility, or, alternatively, that Unit 2 itself did not violate the 250-foot setback; (2) failed to rule that because of Pioneer’s pre-permit construction, DES was required to deny the permit; (3) failed to consider the impact on the petitioner of granting the driveway setback waiver; and (4) reviewed the waiver of the driveway setback under an incorrect standard. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Appeal of Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The Town of Charlestown appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) dismissing its petition for reclassification of current use parcels owned by taxpayer TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. The Town asserted that, "[b]ecause the three parcels are part of a development involving land use for the purpose of generating electricity, they have been improperly classified as open space land under" RSA chapter 79-A. As a result, the Town requested that the BTLA revoke the current use status of the three parcels and require the Town's assessing officials to reclassify the parcels. The Town further requested that the BTLA issue an order requiring the assessing officials to reassess taxes for tax years 2007 through 2012. TransCanada objected, arguing that the three parcels were not improperly classified as open space land. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that the BTLA did not err in dismissing the Town's petition for reclassification on the ground that the Town could unilaterally reclassify the land. As the Town agreed at oral argument, the Court did not address whether the Town could apply the reclassification retrospectively. View "Appeal of Town of Charlestown" on Justia Law

Respondent R. Eric Bloomfield, DVM, appealed a decision of the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine which reprimanded respondent based upon its findings that he failed to do a physical examination of a puppy prior to demonstrating a restraint technique, that his restraint of the puppy was excessive, and that he failed to respect the opinion of the puppy's owners. A couple took their five-month old puppy to respondent for a routine checkup. Respondent determined that the male puppy was "dominant" and proceeded to demonstrate a dominance-submission technique, which included picking the dog up by the scruff of the neck and pinching his snout. The dog responded by urinating on the examination table, then defecating, struggling briefly, then laid still. The dog was pronounced dead later that day. The couple filed a formal complaint against respondent regarding his treatment of their puppy. The Board found that respondent did not engage in misconduct, but that he failed to respect the couple's opinion to demonstrate the submission technique. On appeal, respondent argued that the evidence did not support the Board’s finding that he failed to do a physical examination of the puppy prior to demonstrating a restraint technique, and that his restraint of the puppy "was excessive, especially given the breed." He also argued that RSA 332-B:14, II(c) was "impermissibly vague," and, therefore, violates his procedural due process rights. Finally, he argued that the Board erred by not requiring expert testimony on the standard of care. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of R. Eric Bloomfield, DVM " on Justia Law

In the summer of 2008, defendant Eli and Bessie Cohen Foundation, doing business as Cohen Camps, hired Michael Feld to serve as a counselor at Camp Tel Noar on Sunset Lake in Hampstead, as it had done the previous summer. Prior to employing him each summer, defendant performed a criminal background check on Feld, and each time his record was clear. During the beginning of his second summer at the camp, other counselors noticed a change in Feld's personality from the prior year, including that he was more outgoing and eccentric, and that he behaved inappropriately at times. Feld has suffered from bipolar disorder for years. Feld's father spoke with the camp director and informed him that Feld could become "manic" and should be taking his medication. On the evening of July 6, Feld and a group of counselors went to a doughnut shop. While there, Feld became increasingly agitated, expressed a desire to return to the camp, and began throwing away the other counselors' unfinished food and drinks in an attempt to compel them to leave. Upon their return to the camp around midnight, Feld’s roommate reported Feld’s behavior to the boys' head counselor. Feld and his roommate then conversed with one another in their room for several hours, during which time Feld’s behavior became increasingly erratic and he demonstrated mood swings, paranoid thoughts, and delusions of grandeur. At approximately 5:00 a.m., Feld forced his way into a private residence immediately adjacent to the camp. The homeowner's wife telephoned the police and Feld ran from the premises. Plaintiff Kathleen Boulter, a Hampstead police officer, was dispatched "to detain, question and/or arrest the suspect as a result of his alleged conduct, and to investigate the home invasion complaint." As the plaintiff was interviewing the homeowner, they observed Feld running down the road naked. Plaintiff ran after Feld, repeatedly telling him to "get down on the ground." When Feld charged at her, plaintiff discharged her taser, but Feld tackled her and began to strangle her, nearly causing her to lose consciousness. The homeowner knocked Feld off plaintiff and plaintiff locked herself and the homeowner in her police cruiser to wait for backup. Feld was subsequently apprehended following a struggle with the plaintiff and two other officers who had been called to the scene. Plaintiff sued defendant and Feld to recover for injuries she suffered as she was attempting to arrest Feld, alleging negligent, reckless, and intentional misconduct. All four of the counts in her writ that pertained to defendant were based upon the assertion that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. According to plaintiff, "as a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligence of the Defendant, . . . [she] sustained painful, serious and permanent injuries." Because the injury giving rise to plaintiff's negligence claims directly arose from the alleged "negligent conduct which created the particular occasion for [her] official engagement," the Supreme Court concluded that such claims were barred by the Firefighter's Rule. View "Boulter v. Eli & Bessie Cohen Foundation" on Justia Law

This case involved a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief brought by plaintiffs Harbor Homes, Inc. and Gary Dube, Thomas Taylor, Cynthia Washington, and Arthur Furber against defendants the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Commissioner of DHHS, the Associate Commissioner of DHHS, and the Administrator of the Bureau of Behavioral Health seeking, in part, to enjoin DHHS from denying the individual plaintiffs the right to obtain Medicaid-funded services from their chosen provider, Harbor Homes. The individual plaintiffs received Medicaid-funded rehabilitative services from Harbor Homes. Since 1991, Harbor Homes participated in New Hampshire's Medicaid program pursuant to a Medicaid Provider Enrollment Agreement. On June 23, 2008, Harbor Homes entered into an interagency agreement (IAA) with a community mental health program, Community Council of Nashua, NH, now known as Greater Nashua Mental Health Center (GNMHC), which authorized Harbor Homes to provide certain Medicaid-funded rehabilitative services to GNMHC patients. In February 2011, Harbor Homes learned that GNMHC did not intend to renew its IAA and that the Medicaid reimbursable services provided by Harbor Homes would be transitioned to GNMHC. This was done pursuant to Administrative Rule He-M 426.04(a)(2), which meant that Harbor Homes would no longer have an IAA with a community mental health provider, and it would no longer be permitted to provide Medicaid funded mental health services to approximately one hundred and forty of its clients, including the individual plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs filed a petition for injunctive and declaratory relief, seeking a court order enjoining DHHS from "terminating or limiting Harbor Homes' status as a qualified Medicaid provider" and to direct the State to allow the individual plaintiffs to obtain community mental health services from Harbor Homes, the provider of their choice. Following two hearings, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Thereafter, all parties moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim that DHHS's reliance upon the IAA requirement as a reason to terminate Harbor Homes' status as a qualified Medicaid provider was improper because the requirement was invalid both on its face and as applied in this case. Plaintiffs appealed rulings of the Superior Court that denied their summary judgment motions and granting the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment on two counts in the plaintiffs' petition. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's ruling that New Hampshire Administrative Rules, He-M 426.04(a)(2) did not violate the federal Medicaid Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dube v. New Hampshire Dept. of Health & Human Svcs." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the Coos County Commissioners (collectively CCC), on behalf of the unincorporated places of Dixville and Millsfield, appealed a New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) decision which denied the CCC's motion to reconsider and revise downward respondent's, the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA), 2012 equalized valuations of Dixville and Millsfield because the CCC did not show that the valuations were unreasonable and disproportionate. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a rehearing. The CCC argued that: (1) the DRA's assessed value of the property, Windpark, was greater than its fair market value and, therefore, the DRA's equalized valuations for Millsfield and Dixville were disproportionate and unreasonable; (2) the BTLA erred by denying its motions to compel production of the Windpark appraisal and to continue the hearing, and by not allowing the CCC's expert witness to testify during the hearing; and (3) the DRA should have been estopped from denying the accuracy of the $113 million PILOT valuation. The Supreme Court concluded after review that the BTLA's determination that it was proper for the DRA to use the utility tax appraisal in performing its statutory duties under RSA 21-J:3, XIII was reasonable, particularly given that neither unincorporated place had fulfilled its own statutory duty to appraise the Windpark for property tax purposes, and that the DRA was statutorily obligated to conduct a utility tax appraisal. The Court agreed with the CCC that the BTLA erred in denying their motion to compel production of the DRA's utility tax appraisal of the Windpark. For those reasons, the BTLA erred in denying the CCC's motion to compel disclosure of the Windpark's utility tax appraisal: "While we agree that the CCC had the burden to prove at the hearing that the equalized valuations were disproportionate and unjust, we find that the BTLA's refusal to compel disclosure of the Windpark appraisal prevented the CCC from having a fair opportunity to meet this burden. Accordingly, we conclude that the CCC did not receive a fair hearing before the BTLA, as it did not have an opportunity to present evidence to challenge or otherwise discredit the valuation arrived at on the utility tax appraisal." The BTLA found that "[n]othing in the minutes of the December, 2007 meeting or anything that occurred thereafter indicates an express or implied promise by the DRA that the Windpark would be valued at any fixed and unchanging amount (such as $113 million) for any purpose or length of time." The BTLA's decision was supported by the evidence, and accordingly the BTLA did not err in finding that this statement could not reasonably have been relied upon by the CCC as a commitment by the DRA that $113 million would be the true market value of the Windpark. Accordingly, the BTLA did not err in rejecting this argument. View "Appeal of Coos County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Effective July 1, 2009, the New Hampshire Legislature imposed a ten percent tax on gambling winnings (Gambling Winnings Tax). The Gambling Winnings Tax was repealed effective May 23, 2011. The repeal was not retroactive, meaning that the tax was assessed on gambling winnings between July 1, 2009, and May 22, 2011. Petitioner Leonard Willey was a New Hampshire resident who, for the three years preceding the filing of this action, derived almost all of his earned income from gambling. For the 2009 tax year, he owed no federal income tax because his gambling losses exceeded his winnings. Petitioner David Eby was not an original party to this action, but was added as a substitute party later in the case. He was a New Hampshire resident who, in May 2011, purchased a scratch ticket and won ten dollars on the ticket, and was required to pay one dollar under the Gambling Winnings Tax as a result. This class action was filed in 2010, by putative class representatives Dean Leighton and Leighton Family Enterprises, LLC and Willey. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that the Gambling Winnings Tax was illegal and unconstitutional on its face, as applied to pre-enactment lottery winners receiving their winnings through annuities, and as applied to professional gamblers, as well as a refund of all such taxes collected or withheld. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed petitioners' motion for summary judgment and remaining claims challenging the constitutionality of the state's tax on gambling winnings. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court: the Court disagreed with petitioners that a tax on gross gambling winnings was inherently “unfair, unreasonable, and disproportional” under the New Hampshire constitution. Because petitioners could not show that they suffered harm under the Commerce Clause, were professional gamblers, or were gambling winnings annuity recipients, they did not suffer the same injury as the members of the subclasses they claimed to represent, and thus they did not demonstrate their entitlement to act as class representatives for the members of those subclasses. The Gambling Winnings Tax neither lacked uniformity nor was disproportional and unreasonable; and petitioners lacked standing to bring their remaining challenges to the tax. View "Eby v. New Hampshire" on Justia Law

Petitioner New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL) appealed the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy’s decision that NHRTL did not have standing to participate in administrative actions involving the renewal of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England’s (PPNNE) limited retail drug distributor license. NHRTL sent a written complaint to the Board, alleging that PPNNE did not have a state contract in place with DHHS and was therefore illegally dispensing prescription drugs at its clinics. In its letter, NHRTL claimed that PPNNE’s contract with DHHS had expired on June 30, 2011, and had not been renewed. On June 18, 2012, PPNNE sent renewal applications for its six clinics to the Board, and on July 2, 2012, the Board sent letters to each clinic acknowledging receipt of the application. Each letter stated that the Board would not review the renewal application until August 15, 2012, but notified the clinics that it had “ministerially” renewed its licenses through September 1, 2012. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board, finding that none of NHRTL's generalized claims alleged NHRTL suffered an injury in fact, or that its own rights have been, or would have been specifically or directly affected. "NHRTL does not claim that any of its individual members has suffered, or will suffer, harm - it refers to deaths caused by the alleged failure to regulate that did not affect NHRTL’s membership. Instead, these concerns merely represent NHRTL’s interest in what it believes to be a public problem. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that NHRTL lacked standing." View "Appeal of New Hampshire Right to Life" on Justia Law

Petitioner David Montenegro appealed a superior court order dismissing his petition for injunctive relief seeking to compel the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), to issue him a personalized vanity motor vehicle registration plate reading "COPSLIE." He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the DMV’s denial of his request violated his right to free speech. Because the Court found that the regulation relied upon by the DMV in denying petitioner’s request was unconstitutionally vague, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Montenegro v. New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles " on Justia Law

The Town of North Hampton appealed the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board's (PELRB) finding that the Town engaged in unfair labor practices in dealing with respondent North Hampton Professional Fire Fighters, Local 3211, IAFF (Union). The CBA contained wage scales for firefighters and lieutenants, respectively, each consisting of five steps. It provided that "[m]ovement through [the] steps is dependent on achieving certain professional certifications." During bargaining over the CBA, the Union submitted a wage proposal that provided for, among other things, a "[s]tipend for paramedic level EMT [that] will be 5% over actual step (base pay) whether hired as or a current employee has received the certification." The Town rejected the proposal and the parties put the paramedic program issue on hold. The Town remained interested in a paramedic program, however, and the Union informed the Town in June 2011 that it was willing to resume negotiations over the program. The Town responded that a vacancy on the selectboard was delaying the process. Nevertheless, in August 2011, the Town adopted a paramedic program that was not produced through bargaining with the Union. The program established a wage schedule and conditions of employment similar to those previously proposed by the Union and rejected by the Town. On appeal, the Town argued that the PELRB erred in: (1) finding that the Town was required to bargain over its paramedic program when the adoption of that program was within the Town’s "managerial prerogative"; (2) finding that the Town had previously created a paramedic program; (3) finding that the Town was required to bargain over the wages, hours, and working conditions of a position before the parties agreed to, and the PELRB ordered, the inclusion of that position in a bargaining unit; and (4) finding, on insufficient evidence, that the Town violated its duty to bargain and/or was motivated by anti-union animus. The Supreme Court concluded the Town failed to demonstrate that the PELRB made an erroneous ruling of law or to demonstrate, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that its order was unjust or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court declined to set aside the PELRB’s decision. View "Appeal of Town of North Hampton " on Justia Law