Diversified Health Management Services, Inc. v. Visiting Nurses Ass'n of Cordele, Inc.

Decision Date27 June 1985
Docket NumberNo. 42144,42144
Citation330 S.E.2d 885,254 Ga. 500
PartiesDIVERSIFIED HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. et al. v. VISITING NURSES ASSOCIATION OF CORDELE, INC. et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

John L. Tracy, Albany, for Diversified Health Management Services, Inc., et al.

Carr G. Dodson, Macon, Guy D. Pfeiffer, Cordele, for Visiting Nurses Ass'n of Cordele, Inc., et al. MARSHALL, Presiding Justice.

There are two plaintiffs in this case: Diversified Health Management Services, Inc. (Diversified) and River Valley Home Health Agency, Inc. (River Valley). There are two defendants: Visiting Nurses Association of Cordele, Inc. (Visiting Nurses) and Taylor Memorial Hospital, Inc. (Taylor Memorial).

Plaintiff River Valley is a non-profit corporation, which has been granted a certificate of need to provide home health care services in Pulaski County. Plaintiff Diversified is the managing entity for River Valley. Defendant Taylor Memorial is licensed under Georgia law to provide hospital services. Defendant Visiting Nurses has a certificate of need under which it is authorized to provide home health care services in Pulaski County.

Defendant Taylor Memorial has entered into an agreement with defendant Visiting Nurses under which they will jointly provide home health care services in Pulaski County. Defendant Taylor Memorial will provide the personnel, and defendant Visiting Nurses will provide billing of the services to state and federal agencies.

This suit by the plaintiffs is to enjoin the defendants from performance of this agreement on the ground that it constitutes an unlawful transfer of Visiting Nurses' certificate of need to Taylor Memorial. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint on grounds that they lack standing to sue, that they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

1. The Certificate of Need Program is codified at OCGA § 31-6-40 et seq., as part of the State Health Planning and Development Act (the Act). OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq. (former Code Ann. § 88-3301 et seq.). OCGA § 31-6-41 (a) provides that, "A certificate of need shall be valid only for the defined scope, location, cost, service area, and person named in an application, as it may be amended, and as such scope, location, area, cost, and person are approved by the planning agency, unless such certificate of need owned by an existing health care facility is transferred to a person who acquires such existing facility. In such case, the certificate of need shall be valid for the person who acquires such a facility and for the scope, location, cost, and service area approved by the planning agency."

2. Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention of the State of Georgia v. Metro Ambulance Services, Inc., 250 Ga. 61, 296 S.E.2d 547 (1982), was another case involving competing parties providing health care services and drawing in question issues concerning the statutory law governing certificates of need. In Metro Ambulance, we held that only the State Health Planning and Development Agency (the Agency), or such other governmental agency as authorized by law, has standing to bring an action to enforce the provisions of the Act. In so holding, we noted that the purpose of the Act is the development of adequate health care services and facilities "in an orderly and economical manner," OCGA § 31-6-1 (former Code Ann. § 88-3301), and that in accordance with this policy the Agency has been established to administer the Act. We concluded that the accomplishment of this purpose "is best established through such a regulatory agency, and an attempt to achieve the goals of the act through random litigation in the courts would likely result in more confusion rather than the orderliness mandated by the statute. Furthermore, we are unable to construe this statute as a mechanism for determination of the respective rights of competitors." 250 Ga. at p. 63, 296 S.E.2d 547.

3. At the time of the Metro Ambulance decision, the Act contained the following provision as to standing to bring suit under the Act. "For purposes of this Code section, the state, acting by and through the state agency, in addition to any other proper parties, shall have standing in any court of competent jurisdiction to maintain an action for injunctive or other appropriate relief to enforce ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Hous. Hosps., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 26 d3 Outubro d3 2022
    ...found to be in the public interest shall be provided in this state."); see also Diversified Health Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Visiting Nurses Ass'n of Cordele, Inc. , 254 Ga. 500, 502 (4), 330 S.E.2d 885 (1985) ("[T]he purpose of the [CON] Act is the development of health care services and facil......
  • Palmyra Park Hosp. Inc. v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr..Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr..Palmyra Park Hosp. Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Mem'l Hosp..Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Phoebe Putney Mem'l Hosp..
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 5 d2 Julho d2 2011
    ...determination of the respective rights of competitors.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Diversified Health Mgmt. Svcs. v. Visiting Nurses, etc., 254 Ga. 500, 501–502(2), 330 S.E.2d 885 (1985). The record includes substantial evidence to support the agency's findings of fact, and the con......
  • Se. Ga. Health Sys., Inc. v. Berry
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 31 d1 Janeiro d1 2022
    ...SGHS has no other adequate legal remedy available to achieve the relief sought. Diversified Health Mgmt. Svcs., Inc. v. Visiting Nurses Assn. of Cordele, Inc. , 254 Ga. 500, 502 (4), 330 S.E.2d 885 (1985) (a competitor cannot sue for injunctive relief as an "interested person" under the CON......
  • COSC v. GEORGIA ALLIANCE OF COMMUNITY HOSP., A03A0303.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 15 d2 Julho d2 2003
    ...but merely provides a measure of procedural protection). 11. See OCGA § 31-6-1 et seq.; Diversified Health Mgmt. Svcs. v. Visiting Nurses Assn., 254 Ga. 500, 502(4), 330 S.E.2d 885 (1985). 12. See generally Metzler v. Rowell, 248 Ga.App. 596, 597(1), 547 S.E.2d 311 (2001). 13. OCGA § 9-11-1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT