No opinions on the 5th; two opinions on the 12th. The first one deals with the budget-review process for hospitals. The second one deals with the State's appeal rights in bail decisions. I don't have a clever lead-in today, so we'll skip the throat-clearing and dive into the hospital-budgeting decision first.
Central Vermont Medical Center's (CVMC’s) proposed budget for fiscal year 2025 asked the Green Mountain Care Board to approve a big budget bump: 11.9% growth in net patient revenue (NPR) and a 5.5% increase in commercial rates. But the Board’s benchmarks were 3.5% (NPR growth) and 3.4% (commercial rate growth). The Board didn't approve the budget, reasoning that the skyrocketing costs would hurt affordability for Vermonters. The Board also noted that previous years had already seen hefty increases. Ultimately, the Board lowered CVMC’s requested increases to a 6% cap on NPR growth and 3.4% on commercial rates.
CVMC appeals, arguing that the Board engaged in arbitrary decision-making, lacked clear standards, and violated due process. If one wanted to foreshadow here, one might say—in an appropriately sarcastic tone—good luck with that.
SCOV notes that the budget-review process is spelled out in statute and Board rules. Hospitals get annual guidance detailing the benchmarks (such as NPR growth rates) and expectations for justification. In other words, if hospitals want more than the benchmark, they've got to make a showing of why the extra money is needed, what it will do for patients, and whether the hospital's expenses and efficiency are under control.
CVMC argues, however, that the Board got to do whatever it wanted without clear rules or guardrails. CVMC also argues that the guidance was a moving target, and that due process got thrown out the window because CVMC didn't know—and wasn't really told—what standards would be used. Finally, CVMC argues that the Board is supposed to regulate on a per-capita basis, not just total hospital revenues.
SCOV says, "Hmm. No." First off, the statute and rules do set standards, even if they aren't always a model of precision or totally quantifiable. Things like "affordability," "quality care," and "efficient operation" are necessarily flexible terms—and that's because hospitals and the Board deal with shifting realities in health care.
Next, SCOV reasons that hospitals get fair notice of the process and what's expected each year, with guidance and an opportunity to respond and participate. Accordingly, SCOV finds CVMC's no-due-process contentions wanting.
SCOV further reasons that the law calls for the Board to reduce per-capita growth in costs, but it doesn’t mandate per-capita-only analysis for every budget. Accordingly, the Board’s approach was fine here.
SCOV concludes that the Board acted within its authority, followed its own standards, and gave reasons tied to the evidence (poor margins, high expenses, below-benchmark productivity, long wait times, and average prices). Because SCOV concludes that there were no procedural or legal errors, it affirms. In re Central Vermont Medical Center, 2025 VT 53
Our next decision answers the burning question: What are the State's appeal rights when a single SCOV Justice issues a decision releasing a defendant held without bail? The answer? None.
Ms. Beldiman was charged with aggravated stalking after violating an abuse-prevention order and was held without bail (HWOB) by the criminal division. This was based on Vermont's constitutional and statutory language allowing HWOBs for "a felony, an element of which involves an act of violence against another person." The trial judge reasoned that aggravated stalking met that test, but the defendant disagreed.
And so, when a single SCOV Justice looked it over, the Justice concluded that aggravated stalking can be committed without actual violence—substantial emotional distress or property interference is enough. Without the element-which-involves-an-act-of-violence component, the offense doesn't bump this into a HWOB situation. The Justice reversed the HWOB order, and Ms. Beldiman was released on conditions.
Now, the State didn't like that. So the prosecution tries to appeal, arguing it should get review of the single-Justice order.
SCOV disagrees. The State has limited rights to appeal bail or release orders, but said rights are tightly circumscribed by statute—not common law. This statute provides the roadmap, and most appeal routes focus on appeals by the person being detained, not the State. The State's path to appeal ("when a person is released") leads, under subsection (c) of the statute, to a single Justice of the Supreme Court. After that, the statute clearly says "no further appeal may lie from the ruling of a single Justice in matters to which this subsection applies." In other words, the single Justice's call is final for the State.
But wait. Didn't the defendant appeal? Why can't the State appeal that order? Here's where semantics matter. The statute's language ("below," "remand") show that appeals are meant to go up from lower courts to Supreme Court Justices, not ping-pong between Justices in the Supreme Court itself. SCOV reasons that the omission of finality language in the last part of the statute actually means that detained defendants (but not the State) can appeal to a special three-Justice panel—giving extra protection to liberty interests, not to the prosecution. SCOV concludes that it's reasonable that individuals held without bail have broader rights to challenge detention than the State has to keep them locked up before trial.
SCOV holds that he State cannot appeal a single Justice's determination under Vermont's bail statutes once the Justice reverses the hold-without-bail order. But if the defendant stays in jail, the defendant can keep fighting to get out. If the defendant gets released, the State's right to review ends at the single Justice. What this boils down to is that the prosecution's right to challenge pretrial release stops at one Supreme Court Justice. No mulligans, no full-court review.
And so, if a single SCOV Justice says "release," the State can't appeal further. The statute means largely what it says, no matter how much the prosecution disagrees. State v. Beldiman, 2025 VT 55.
Comments
Post a Comment