Arnot-Ogden Memorial Hosp. v. Guthrie Clinic, Inc.
| Citation | 122 A.D.2d 413,505 N.Y.S.2d 232 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | ARNOT-OGDEN |
| Parties | MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. GUTHRIE CLINIC, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Sayles, Evans, Brayton, Palmer & Tifft (Edward B. Hoffman, of counsel), Elmira, for appellant.
Epstein, Becker, Borsody & Green, P.C. (Philip M. Gassel, of counsel), New York City, for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Swartwood, J.), entered December 16, 1985 in Chemung County, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a preliminary injunction.
Doctors Charles L. Palmer and John W. Mills, as partners, operated a private medical practice in the Village of Horseheads, Chemung County, until 1985. In that year, they incorporated as a professional services corporation known as Guthrie Medical Group, P.C. (the Group), which is a defendant herein. The Group became associated with defendant Guthrie Clinic, Inc. (the Clinic), a Pennsylvania corporation. Thereafter, the Group applied to and received from the Village of Horseheads Planning Board a special use permit so that it could construct an addition to its building. At no time has the Group or the Clinic applied to the State Department of Health (DOH) for approval either to operate the clinic or to construct an addition thereto.
Plaintiff commenced this action, asserting that the Group was a diagnostic and treatment clinic within the meaning of Public Health Law article 28 and 10 NYCRR 600.8 and that it had not applied thereunder for the requisite certificate of need (CON) from DOH. Plaintiff's action sought a declaration that the Group was operating a diagnostic and treatment center in violation of Public Health Law article 28 and an injunction against the Group's operation of its center until it complied with such law.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from undertaking new construction or purchasing new medical equipment. Special Term, agreeing with defendants that plaintiff lacked standing to maintain this suit, dismissed the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion. This appeal ensued.
Under both Federal law (National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 [NHPRDA] [42 USC § 300k et seq. ] ) and State law (Public Health Law §§ 2801-a, 2802), a party wishing to establish or expand a health clinic or hospital must first submit an application to a CON program to determine the public need for such proposal, the applicant's competence and the financial feasibility of the proposed service (see, Matter of Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. New York State Dept. of Health, 109 A.D.2d 140, 490 N.Y.S.2d 636, rev'd. on other grounds 66 N.Y.2d 948, 498 N.Y.S.2d 780, 489 N.E.2d 749). Such procedure is required only of clinics and hospitals, and not of private physicians (see, Clifton Springs Sanitarium Co. v. Axelrod, 115 A.D.2d 949, 950, 497...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty
...such proposal, the applicant's competence and the financial feasibility of the proposed service.” Arnot–Ogden Mem. Hosp. v. Guthrie Clinic, Inc., 122 A.D.2d 413, 505 N.Y.S.2d 232 (1986); see Spitzer, 94 F.Supp.2d at 403 (“The CON process must also be followed in seeking DOH approval for the......
-
New York Ass'n of Convenience Stores v. Urbach
...goals (see, Matter of Blue Cross of W. N.Y. v. Cooper, 164 A.D.2d 578, 580-581, 564 N.Y.S.2d 866; Arnot-Ogden Mem. Hosp. v. Guthrie Clinic, 122 A.D.2d 413, 414-415, 505 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 612, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 503 N.E.2d 124). Accordingly, petitioners have not established ......
-
Lettko v. New York State Dept. of Health
...v. Ambach, 136 A.D.2d 25, 525 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied, 72 N.Y.2d 804, 532 N.Y.S.2d 369, 528 N.E.2d 521; Arnot-Ogden Mem. Hosp. v. Guthrie Clinic, 122 A.D.2d 413, 505 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied, 68 N.Y.2d 612, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 503 N.E.2d 124). Under familiar principles the requirement of in......
-
Roberts v. Health
...article 28's goals of “cost containment and the promotion of efficiency in health care planning” ( Arnot–Ogden Mem. Hosp. v. Guthrie Clinic, 122 A.D.2d 413, 414, 505 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1986], lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 612, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 503 N.E.2d 124 [1986] ). As a result, petitioners have fail......