Arkansas Health Planning and Development Agency v. Hot Springs County Memorial Hosp., 86-149

• Decision Date: 09 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-149,86-149
• Citation: 723 S.W.2d 363,291 Ark. 186
• Parties: ARKANSAS HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY; et al., Appellants, v. HOT SPRING COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 363

723 S.W.2d 363

291 Ark. 186

ARKANSAS HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY; et al., Appellants, v. HOT SPRING COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellee.

No. 86-149.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Feb. 9, 1987.

George A. Harper, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellants.

Winston Bryant, N. Little Rock, for appellee.

DUDLEY, Justice.

The Hot Spring County Memorial Hospital filed an application with the Arkansas Health Planning and Development Agency for a Certificate of Need to establish and operate a Home Health Agency in Hot Spring County. After a review of the application, the administrative agency denied the request. Pursuant to the agency's rules, the hospital sought a review by an independent agency, which was granted, and then the independent agency remanded the matter back to the administrative agency for another adjudicatory hearing. An adjudicatory hearing was held, and the hospital presented additional evidence to support its position. Again, the agency denied the application, and, again, the hospital requested a review by an independent agency. The decision of the administrative agency was sustained by the independent agency on the second review. The hospital next sought judicial review in circuit court. The circuit court found that the administrative agency decision was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, and constituted an abuse of discretion. It ordered the administrative agency to issue a Certificate of Need. The administrative agency appeals. We reverse the circuit court because there was substantial evidence to support the agency decision.

One who seeks a license has the burden of proving eligibility to the satisfaction of the licensing agency. Williams v. Scott, 278 Ark. 453, 647 S.W.2d 115 (1983). The administrative agency, like a jury, is free to believe or disbelieve any witness and, on review, we give the evidence its strongest probative force to support the administrative decision. To establish an absence of substantial evidence to support the decision the appellant must demonstrate that the proof before the administrative tribunal was so nearly undisputed that fair-minded men could not reach its conclusion. Finally, the question is not whether the testimony would have supported a contrary finding but whether it supports the finding that was made. Williams v. Scott, supra.

In the case at bar, when the evidence is given its strongest probative force to support the administrative decision, there was substantial evidence to deny the granting of a Certificate of Need.

The decision to deny the Certificate of Need for a home health agency was made in accordance with the agency's regulations. The standard for granting a certificate is based upon a methodology which has been adopted as a rule by the Statewide Health Coordinating Council. That methodology employs a calculation which predicts the number of persons in each county who can be expected to need home health care at one time. A formula is then applied to that figure in order to project the resources needed to provide the required services to the patients. "Resources" includes administrative personnel as well as field personnel such as registered nurses, licensed practical nurses,...